Usually, when I go to the gym, I don’t work on my legs very much because I figure my daily bicycle commute works them enough. Yesterday, however, I suckered myself into doing dead lifts, and then hamstring and quad curls. So today my legs are very sore; which is why I abandoned plans for outdoor adventure, sat my butt down into one of those Ikea reclining chairs, and nerded my morning away thinking about BC Premier Gordon Campbell’s position on Tar Sands pipelines and tankers. I wanted to understand the relation between 'the general public opinion' and 'the government's opinion' on any given idea, and what that means for how the government communicates their support or lack of support for said idea.

I came up with several scenarios, each with a different public/government opinion relation, and hypothesis as to likely government action...

...based on the assumption that when our government is presented with a new idea it has the power to do one of three things:

(1) encourage it,

(2) discourage it,

(3) or take a neutral position.

For the purposes of this thought experiment, I'm restricting the discussion to the power of  the provincial ‘government’, due to their power over resource decisions in BC. And I'm also assuming that the power of our provincial government is with the Premier, Cabinet, and to a lesser extent the ruling party. So when referring to ‘the government’, I'm referring to the power of those bodies.

So, what I figure is that the particular way in which our government encourages, discourages, or remains neutral on something will depend on what they assess the public opinion to be. And this gives rise to my scenarios of government action below:

• When the new idea has the conceptual support of government, and the assessed support of a majority of the electorate, the government will actively support the idea and will actively publicize their support. I’ll call this the 'Ribbon Cutting' scenario.

• When the new idea has the conceptual support of government, and the assessed support of a majority of the electorate, but when the government doesn't want to commit to actually doing anything, it will actively support the idea, but won't actually do anything.  I'll call this the Housing for the Homeless scenario.
  

• When the new idea has the conceptual support of government, but on which the assessed opinion of the electorate is unknown, neutral, or undecided, the government will support the idea but will not go to lengths to publicize their support, or will publicize their support in the hopes of shaping future public opinion on the idea. I need a good name for this scenario.

•  Same goes for if the new idea does not have the conceptual support of government, but for which the opinion of the electorate is unknown, neutral, or undecided.

• When the new idea does not have the conceptual support of government, and does not have the assessed support of a majority of the electorate, the government will actively discourage the idea and will actively publicize their lack of support. I’ll call this the ‘Over Our Dead Bodies’ scenario.

• When the new idea has the conceptual support of government, but is a matter of controversy, or does not have the assessed support of a majority of the electorate, the government will usually support the idea, but will obfuscate their support, delay their support by temporarily distancing themselves from the idea, or will define their support as having to do with particular aspects of the idea or a whole other idea that the public supports. I’ll call this the 'Coastal Drilling' scenario. This includes what I’ll call the ‘Bad Medicine’ scenario, where an idea that the public doesn’t support is defined as being required to sustain an idea that the public does support.  

• When the new idea does not have the conceptual support of government, but has the support of a majority of the electorate, the government will claim an absence of power, an absence of information needed to exercise their power, a need for more time to assess the idea, or will define the idea as negatively affecting another idea that the public supports. I’ll call this the ‘Fish Farm’ scenario.

It’s possible that there are ideas on which the government remains truly neutral, or with regards to which they have no power, but I believe these are rare.

And of course, because all life is a spectrum, a range of intermediate circumstances exist between the categories.

So there you have it, where does your idea of interest fit? Or can you add or modify the categories? Have better names for the categories?

I decided that the idea of a Tar Sands pipeline from Alberta, through BC, and onto supertankers through BC’s north coast is an idea that has government support, but is controversial, so their support will be obfuscated and communicated as being linked to an idea that does have broad public support (e.g. a strong economy, jobs). For example, question to Premier Campbell: do you support the idea of oil tankers through our north coast? Answer: 'I absolutely support a strong northern economy.'

Remember that I assumed that governments will always try to do what they want to do, so if our government wants to allow tankers, the only way to remove their support for the idea is to convince them that they don't want tankers. And the best way to do that is to be good political organizers during elections, making it so that their jobs could be on the line if they don't fall in explicit line with public opinion. Make public opinion more obvious by signing our petition to keep Tar Sands tankers out of BC's north coast forever!

~ Eric
eric@dogwoodinitiative.org

Eric's Blogs – I'm Dogwood Initiative's Corporate Campaigner; I work to encourage companies to change their policies, work to communicate undisclosed risk associated with a company or a project to their financial backers in the marketplace, or work to intervene in a company's public relations by telling a less rosy story about the company to the public. Currently I'm focused on  Dogwood's Sacred Headwaters and No Tankers campaigns.

My Blogspace will be dedicated to giving an inside scoop on the campaigns that I'm working on, providing incidental commentary on environmental and social justice topics with regards to BC, and will also contain self-serving entries that essentially record half-formed ideas so that I don't forget them.

Our current electoral system is broken and needs fixing – the way in which this federal election is rolling out has confirmed this for most Canadians. Over the last few weeks there has been a lot of talk about strategic voting: 'a vote for the NDP is a vote for Harper'; 'a vote for the Liberals is a vote for Harper'; 'a vote for the Greens is a vote for Harper'. While any or all of these may be true in a few unique situations, this logic is getting me thinking that the only way to avoid a Conservative majority is to vote Conservative...

...All kidding aside, the frequency with which I’m hearing these arguments is increasing. In certain ridings strategic voting might make sense, but it sure doesn’t inspire me to run out to cast a ballot. I can see why voter turnout continues to decline, especially with younger voters.  If voting for the party that most closely reflects your values is going to be a wasted vote or help bring forward a dangerous agenda for Canada, why bother participating? 

Throughout this campaign there has been an explosion of strategic voting initiatives. Websites, blogs, and Facebook pages for vote swapping; all trying to convince voters to hold their noses and vote for the least worst option. The Liberals, NDP and even the Bloc are falling all over themselves to make the case to Canadians that a vote for them is the only way to stop a Conservative majority.    One of the sites grabbing huge attention is www.voteforenvironment.ca which has received over 1 million hits in the past 12 days.

The popularity of this site highlights that Canadians are looking for any possible way to make sure they get a government that best reflects their values. It confirms that the vast majority of people are truly scared of what a Conservative majority might do to Canada. And it's not just “Joe Sixpack” considering strategic voting; even Newfoundland’s Conservative Premier Danny Williams has his own strategic voting initiative. 

The proliferation of these strategic voting efforts is really a proliferation of democratic desperation. They are seen by many as the best and only way to wring meaning from an unfair process; a process that frustrates voters and produces phony majority after phony majority.  A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that an understandably low 32% of Canadians are happy with the current 'first past the post' system. 

For our democracy to function, to engage non-voters and young voters, we need parties and elected representatives that will compromise and work together. But the rewards for being confrontational and divisive remain too strong. To make politics relevant again to a new generation we need a process that rewards, and ultimately requires our politicians to become accountable to every Canadian, not just those calculated populations needed to win phony majorities.

In this election “vote splitting” on the “left” may end up driving Canada down the wrong road on climate change by handing a stronger mandate to Harper to implement his Oil Industry-approved plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The sad story is that all of the major parties (except the Greens) have had a chance to move forward with changes to electoral systems (to make it more proportional and representative) at both the provincial or federal levels – but they're too tied to the current system of big winners and big losers. As a result, there have been increasing calls to compensate for the consequent political imbalance by merging parties on the “left” to stop “vote splitting” – thereby moving Canada closer to the two party system used in the US.  I think merging “left” parties is a bad idea. Our democracy is much stronger with a diversity of voices.  But we need to give those voices a meaningful podium,- we need an electoral system designed for our multi party system, not one that has long stopped working for Canadians  The fact that we don’t have an electoral system that works in step with our party system will be the main reason Harper may get handed the reigns of power again on Oct 14^th.

When I think about the number of messages that my brain processes in one day, it’s a bit overwhelming. Research shows that the average person is bombarded with over 6000 distinct messages a day, and it seems like that number is increasing at an exponential rate.

So what makes a message stick? Why do I remember her name and not his, one newspaper story but not the next? Relevance. A message has to personally mean something to me, or it’s gone.

The question, ‘what does it mean to me’ is especially salient when it comes to environmental issues. Global warming has become the message of the century and every environmental issue wants to get a bit of the limelight. In many cases, the 'what does it mean to me' question has been replaced by 'how does this connect to global warming'.  

Global warming touches every part of the world, but I’m still trying to figure out what it means to me. I know sea levels are rising, the arctic ice sheets are melting and vegetation is steadily moving northwards, but somehow these things don’t feel tangible. As a world-wide problem, global warming affects us all, but sometimes being part of an audience of 6.6 billion can be strangely isolating.

The environmental messages that stick with me are the ones that answer both questions; 'what does it mean to me' and 'how does this connect to global warming'.

Example: Dogwood's No Tanker campaign

1. What does it mean to me?
Oil tanker spills and pipelines in Northern British Columbia mean massive ecosystem destruction in one of the most beautiful parts of our province and in a place I think is at the heart of our cultural heritage and character.

2. How does this connect to global warming?
Transportation infrastructure like oil tankers and pipelines support the expansion of the global warming behemoth, the Alberta tar sands. Plus, the accelerated development of the tar sands and planned oil exports to Asia do nothing to help Canada transition to alternative energy sources and our long-term energy security.

As the new Outreach Coordinator at Dogwood, I'm trying to figure out how to connect supporters with our No Tanker message. It's a bit daunting to think that I'm up against 6000 other messages a day to try and get people to think about the impact of oil tankers on British Columbia's north coast. 

But the more that I learn about the issue, the more I realize how potential  tankers on our coast do matter to so many different people, in so many different ways. Northern communities face increased corporate control over local lands, coastal fishing and tourism sectors will be at risk of oil spills and First Nations aboriginal title and rights potentially undermined.

If we allow massive oil and gas infrastructure projects such as oil tanker traffic and the construction of oil pipelines, we are determining the future of  our region, and collectively hindering any action to slow global warming in this province. This message should mean something to all British Columbians. 

Famous U.S. abolitionist Wendell Phillps once said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many for the few.” Phillips’ quip applies to BC where fortunes have been made - and are being made- by resource companies that benefit from sweetheart deals that privatize vast tracts of land. A select few, with the right government connections, reap the benefits and the public, especially First Nations, pay the price. The BC government’s recent decision to privatize 28,000 hectares of forestlands previously in Western Forest Products (WFP) tree farm licences (TFL) is only the latest scandal in a sordid history that traces back to BC’s entry into the Canadian Confederation.

Few British Columbians are aware that a land privatization deal was written into the Terms of Union when BC joined Canada in 1871. As Forester Ray Travers points out, “Clause 11 of the Terms of Union, conveyed in trust to the federal government, provincial lands along the entire length of the railway across BC, some that later became the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Land Grant on southeastern Vancouver Island”

The controversy surrounding the E&N land grant still haunts decision making today. In late October, the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group, representing six Coast Salish First Nations, asked the Washington D.C.-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to hear its complaint that 300,000 hectares of land converted to private property in the E&N Land Grant was “an act of egregious piracy.”

Back in the 1870s as part of its commitment to “connect the seaboard of BC with the railway system of Canada,” Canada agreed to contribute $100,000 annually towards the construction of a railway. BC later agreed with Canada to grant about two million acres plus $750,000 to the company that constructed a railroad on Vancouver Island.

As with the recent WFP privatization, back in the 1870’s only a select few well-connected people reaped the bulk of the windfall. The man behind the E&N deal was coal baron Robert Dunsmuir. Dunsmuir, who came to BC from Scotland, made his fortune in coal mining on Vancouver Island. He was both the richest man in BC and, with a seat in the provincial legislature, influential in political circles.

Dunsmuir had little interest in railroads, what he wanted was the land grant and with it control of the great reserves of coal and other minerals. Dunsmuir used his economic and political influence to secure the contract to build the railway. He negotiated behind the scenes with Dominion officials in Victoria and Ottawa, and in April 1884, the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Company was formally established, with Dunsmuir appointed president and holding almost half of the company’s shares.

E&N immediately began subdividing the grant into parcels and selling it off making Dunsmuir and his colleagues millions. In 1905, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR) bought E&N. CPR paid just over $1 million for the railway and $1.25 million for the remaining 566,580 hectares of land not yet sold. In 1910, Dunsmuir sold his coal mining interests in the granted lands for $11 million.

Today, the Hul’qumi’num call this scandalous transaction “the great land grab” because it effectively privatized about one-third of their territory. Robert Morales, chief negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num, said recently, “Dunsmuir and the government stole our land…and for the last hundred years their decedents particularly logging companies have been getting rich, while locking us out.”

The legacy of the E&N privatization is upsetting treaty negotiations. Even though Canadian courts have recognized Aboriginal title and rights on private lands, and directed the Crown to resolve the land disputes honorably, the government will not negotiate private land or compensation at the treaty table. Morales says the Hul’qumi’num are taking action because, “international laws say that if aboriginal lands are illegally confiscated, the lands need to be returned, or we need to be compensated.”

“The conversion of excellent forestland to real estate development goes beyond Dunsmuir and the E&N land grant,” says Ken Millard, a Director of Galiano Conservancy. “What is now happening all over Vancouver Island began on Galiano in the 1970’s. The public subsidizes logging companies for decades with preferential taxes then these same companies try to develop the land and make a killing on real estate.”

Samuel Robins, a manager of a coal mine in Nanaimo, purchased large tracts of land in the Gulf Islands, including 8,294 acres on Galiano in 1899. The land passed through the hands of a number of coal and logging companies before MacMillan Bloedel took control of the lands in 1960. After high-grading the old growth for a few years, in 1972 MacMillan Bloedel proposed to subdivide and sell off their lands. The fight was on. Galiano residents organized and defeated the conversion, but the battle continued. In the 1990s island residents had to defend their community’s bylaws from lawsuits. “Maintaining our community against the developers requires eternal vigilance,” says Millard. “If we relax for a second, developers will move in. Every election is a referendum on the future of our island.”

The Galiano experience is now being replicated all over Vancouver Island. As the coastal timber industry declines after decades of overcutting, many logging companies are now becoming real-estate developers. In 2007, TimberWest announced “94,000 acres of the Company's private forestlands have been identified as having greater value as real estate properties and will progressively be made available for higher uses over the next ten to fifteen years.”

TimberWest is not the only logging company making this realty conversion. The new focus on real estate explains why in 2003 conglomerate Brascan took over the failing Doman-WFP in bankruptcy proceedings. Since leveraging control of WFP, Brascan (now Brookfield Asset Management) has put together vast holdings of both public and Crown forest lands. It acquired all MacMillan Bloedel’s operations in 2004 folding the private lands into the 635,000 acres of fee simple timberlands it controls in a private timber fund. WFP also controls the majority (7.5 million m³) of Annual Allowable Cut from coastal Crown lands.

Forest Minister Rich Coleman decision to remove 70,000 acres of forestland from WFP’s TFLs in January of 2007, illustrates the continued erosion of a system that with a scandalous history dating back over half a century. When they were given away in the late 1950’s, TFLs were a sweetheart deal set up by a corrupt minister who took bribes to ensure favourable terms for logging companies. As a Business Examiner article recently said, “[Government] created the tree farm system precisely to bribe the owners of private lands on Vancouver Island to accept bureaucratic management (or mismanagement) of their lands by guaranteeing them the exclusive use of adjoining public lands.”

Since the BC Liberals were elected in 2001, with strokes of their pens, Forest Ministers selectively dismantled TFLs to create new windfalls for logging corporations friendly to their party. The latest scandal erupted with the announcement that WFP had put 6,300 acres of the former forestlands in the Sooke-Port Renfrew area up for sale. The listing of 4.95 kilometres of waterfront triggered outrage in the community and critical headlines.

In July, John Doyle, the recently appointed Auditor General, also condemned the deal. Using language seldom seen from a government appointee, Doyle concluded the BC government lacked “due regard for the public interest". Doyle’s scathing report found that the Minister’s decision was not adequately informed, consultation was lacking and communications were not transparent. Doyle also condemned the Ministry’s inadequate due diligence into WFP financial status, and highlighted suspicious trading patterns, unusual patterns of political donations and conflicts of interest.

Critics use more forceful language, “The WFP deal reeks, especially the claim that the privatization was necessary to buttress a debt-ridden company and maintain forest jobs” said Maurita Prato, Forest Campaigner for the Victoria-based Dogwood Initiative. “How is converting kilometers of coastal forest into trophy vacation homes going to preserve forest jobs?”

TFLs have triggered scandal since their creation. Back in the 1950’s, when the government originally set up the system, then Forest Minister Robert Sommers went to jail for taking bribes in allocating the new tenures. And in 2004, Forest Minister Mike de Jong, privatized almost 215,000 acres of Weyerhaeuser‘s TFL lands, producing a windfall worth a potential $800 million for the US logging giant when it sold out to Brascan (who folded the lands into the supposedly debt-ridden WFP). The fact that Weyerhaeuser had donated almost $500,000 to the Liberals over the previous decade raised eyebrows.

But sweetheart deals don’t mean real estate development is inevitable. Following Galiano’s example, communities on Vancouver Island are uniting to fight against subdivision and conversion of forestlands. The Capital Regional District rezoned the area around WFPs forestlands to require a 120 hectare minimum lot size. But while then Community Development Minister Ida Chong delayed the approval of the new bylaw for six weeks, WFP applied to develop roughly 1400 ha into 319 subdivision lots under the old rules. The bylaws and WFP’s actions are now before the courts. And the residents of neighboring communities are gearing up for municipal elections, which are expected to be a referendum on the future of the privatized WFP lands.

If a hundred years of controversial land privatizations teaches us anything, its that while the benefits of these sweetheart deals may go to only a select group of well-connected people, it takes a legion of committed residents to ensure communities aren’t sacrificed to enrich real estate-obsessed logging companies and their developer friends.

An abridged version of this article appeared in the Watershed Sentinel

I am 45 years old.

I was born 5 weeks after MLKs famous "I Have a Dream" speech on the mall in Washington. Although it predates my birth, that speech is one of my totems - my touchstones - that inspired me and given me comfort throughout my life.

5 weeks before my 45^th birthday I sat on my couch with my daughter Asha on my lap and listened to Barak Obama accepting the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. I cried.

As an ex-pat, political junky I generally watch US politics with cynicism, a sense of detachment and moral superiority. US politics always seems to me like a John Stewart skit on the Daily Show but without the humour. But not that August night; I was genuinely moved and envious.

It wasn’t Obama’s policy prescriptions - which are mainstream Democrat - it was the fact that a potential leader of my former nation had the courage (and the skill) to articulate a different vision for his country, and for the world. A different vision for how people - even people we disagree with - can relate to one another in a respectful, productive way. Obama challenged Americans to make the US a better country than it has been. He dared everyone to reach for a dream. He reminded us of the promise we imagine - we yearn for - in our leadership and our country. He resurrected the possibility that our children can inherit a world grounded in fairness, equity and a shared sense of their future.

Most importantly he articulated that the path towards this change was not built solely on a new leader, or better policies, but on people re-engaging in the democratic process as a whole.

Obama’s specific policies sometimes disappointed me, particularly on energy. I do not believe solutions lie in so-called clean coal and expanded nuclear. But somehow that didn’t matter. 

Both Martin Luther King and Obama have the unique ability to help re-connect people to the best of themselves. To help people step away from their fear, their bitterness and their partisanship, instead to believe in - and hopefully act - on their collective hope.

My birthday has come and gone and we have visited the polling booths on both sides of the border and while business-as-usual  reigns supreme in the great white north, in the U.S. it seems like the beginning of one of those rare, ephemeral moments in history where people come together to do something great, something beyond their self-interest.

It’s not about us versus them, it’s about we.

As a political activist and new dad I couldn’t contain my tears as Obama spoke after his momentous victory on November 2.  Like many others I felt for the first time in my lifetime a national political candidate was talking for me, articulating my vision for the future and the path to get us there.

But while my heart soared, I couldn’t help but be envious. Juxtapose Obama’s portrait of a better world with the political discourse here in Canada before and after the recent federal election. In Canada we are stuck in a partisan feud where the 15 second sound bites pass for statesmanship. Personal attacks overwhelm substantive discussions and bean counters drive policy. It’s depressing.

While Obama pulled no punches, he wasn’t consumed by finger pointing. The same can’t be said about Harper. .

I know there are those who dismiss the focus on “hope” as happy talk. They claim that those who yearn for something grander, something more tangible and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for tax and spend, anarchy and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record of accomplishment to highlight, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

And unfortunately it worked for Harper. Stephane Dion ran a terrible campaign, but Harper’s need for control, his refusal to let Conservative candidates show up at all candidates meetings, or answer unscripted questions, drove political discourse in Canada to a new all-time low.

Obama pointed out that his opponents tried to “make a big election about small things.” Well that is exactly what has happened in Canada.  Doe anyone really believe that Harper didn’t see the recession coming when he hurriedly called the election.

Harper’s autocratic spin control approach to leadership feeds into the scorn we all have about government. Despite the growing scorn for politics and government, Obama’s grassroots, people-driven campaign victory shows us that our hopes don’t have to be dashed again and again. He has showed us we don’t have to stop hoping; that we don’t have to settle for the status quo, for cynicism …for what you already know.

Obama’s victory shows us all that a better world is possible and that the path forward isn’t defined by one man, but by the belief that collectively we can succeed. Now it’s up to us to import this sentiment to Canadian politics.

I remember hearing similar arguments about gas prices and peoples' driving habits. While the BC carbon tax of 2¢ per litre had a small effect, the effect of gas prices leaping to  $130 per litre was huge. Maybe we should sit back and let market corrections take care of our environment. No need for pesky carbon taxes and regulations.

Sadly, there is no real evidence that the 'invisible hand' of the market will gently move us towards a greener future without government's collective intervention. Yes, change must come, but how we manage that change will make (or break) our future.

It wasn't too long ago when talk of rising oil prices were a cause for optimism among environmentalists. As oil got more expensive (as the market says it must – we are running out of the stuff) people would find ways to move away from their fossil fuel dependence. We didn't realize that upping the price of oil could make polluting more profitable.

Then came the tar sands. When oil was $30 per barrel the tar sands were a marginal resource. It just wasn't economical to pump the Athabasca river dry and burn all the natural gas it took to steam the oil out of the ground. Down in Texas all they had to do was dig a hole and the oil would come gushing out. Up in Alberta we had to dig up four  tonnes of earth just to get a barrel. 

It is different now. As oil gets less plentiful it becomes more economical to exploit previously marginal resource, and these resources, by their very nature, are more remote and require more energy to extract them. Exploiting them is necessarily more damaging to the environment.

Present economic conditions may have temporarily slowed the growth of the tar sands, but we can't rely on the forces of supply and demand and whims of speculators to protect our global life support system. Alberta's oil producers should be made to pay the real cost of the damage they do to Canada's environment and their contribution to global warming. This means paying for their carbon emissions and for cleaning up their toxic legacy. 

The current lull in Tar Sands development gives us the opportunity to put in place measures that force the Tar Sands (and all industry) to move down a more sustainable path. It's not time to rejoice, but to make sure our calls for sanity are heard.

The satisfACTION blog is about activism in British Columbia - the methods, theories, and stories of how people are working together for more perfect communities . Ever felt a need to change things, but don't know where to start?  I'll showcase opportunities for personally satisfying and meaningful actions.

 Introduction

My name's Eric - I'm Dogwood Initiative's Corporate Campaigner. That means my day-day focus is on creating and leveraging financial pressure to supplement Dogwood's campaigns.

But I'm a generalist at heart, and I think most activists and advocates are.  Everybody at Dogwood is continuously striving to connect with people in deeper and more meaningful ways - to drill down to core desires and dreams for the future - and to give people the newest and best tools to fight for that desired future against powerful and often entrenched opposing ideas. 

Many of us hold ourselves back from dreaming big, because we don't think that the kind of societal change we envision is possible or realistic. But when we hold ourselves back, we do ourselves a disservice; we deny the power of coordinated action.

I think it's as easy, and complicated, as giving people what they need to feel good about doing something for the sake of change!

 satisfACTION Revels in the Power of Coordinated Action

I don't mean 'revel' like get a crazy look in your eye and get all Tobey Maguire in Spiderman 3 when the Venom alien symbiote goo takes control.

I mean more like having a good time while taking it to the streets, writing letters, and monkey-wrenching stuff to the point where your ideas become widespread opinion, politicians get on side, and you start ratcheting victories against the third largest corporation in the world.

That is what this blog is about - it's all about getting satisfaction out of action!

 
So You Should Regularly Read This Blog if...

1. You like stories about how people have acted for change in BC - some of whom succeeded...some of whom failed.
   
2. You like to stay on top of what BC individuals and groups are up to 'action-wise'.
   
3. You like learning about the methods, theories, and tools used to organize social change.   
   
4. You say: 'enough with the reading...more with the doing'. Each post will offer up a satisfying and meaningful action.
   
   
   

Getting lots of people to pick up the phone and call key decision makers about your issue of concern is a time-honored method of citizen action. In terms of impact, a call is rumored to be worth about the same as a personal letter faxed or mailed, and beats out an email every time. But what makes an issue-call stand out from all the other calls received during a given time period? Volume. As with virtually all forms of activism, more is better. But don't expect a definite result from an issue call-in. It's all about filling up corporate and political radar screens with multiple blips identifying your issue.

Dialing for Change in BC's Sacred Headwaters

A great example of a high volume call-in recently wrapped up. From Friday November 21 to Friday Nov 28, people from all over BC and Alberta called the offices of BC Premier Gordon Campbell and Shell Canada President Brian Straub asking them to keep oil and gas development out of BC's Sacred Headwaters. There was even an ad in the Calgary Herald to kick it off.

The call was a coordinated action involving the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition, Wildsight, Northwest Watch, the Council of Canadians, Dogwood Initiative, and droves of the groups' supporters and contacts.  

Day 1

On the first morning of the call-in I phoned the Premier's number to add my voice,  and asked whether the Premier's office was keeping track of the number of calls they were getting on the topic. "Oh yes, we keep track," said the receptionist politely. "We've had a few calls today about it..."

A few calls? That sounded like disappointing volume...

Day 5

Dogwood launches our newly minted website, complete with a dedicated action page for the call. We spread the word to our supporters in an email.

Day 7 + 3

 Curious as to how it all went down, the Monday after the action ended I called the Premier's Office again and asked for a final tally of calls.

"Who is this?" the receptionist responds.

I explain I work for Dogwood, one of the groups that asked its supporters to call.

"I wouldn't be able to give you an accurate number," she says.

I ask why, wasn't she keeping a tally?

"I have a kink in my neck sir!" she says tersely. "If you were to say that hundreds and hundreds of people called, that would be accurate."

She went on to say that her entire Friday was taken up with handling the calls, that many people had to leave a message because the phones were tied up, and that they continued to come in all through the next week.

The receptionist never did give me a total;  so I filed a Freedom of Information request for it - once I have it I will post it to the FOI section on Dogwood's website.

 Unfortunately, there are almost always buffer people between you and decision makers when you're taking any kind of action, and these are the people first inconvenienced. The mission of call-ins isn't to cause neck problems for aides, so I think I'll send her some flowers. That being said, neck problems are definitely a sign that your action is working!

Shell Wants the Calls to Go Away

Reports also came in indicating that Shell had started directing callers to the Company's customer service department to avoid talking to them; the callers would then just get an automated message saying that the department is only open 8am-8pm ... e.g. even if it was only 1:00pm at the time. 

In other words, the call-in was a success: radar screens lit up with Sacred Headwaters blips.

Who Called?

One of the crucial questions in any action is: from the pool of people you contacted, how many actually chose to take part?

Dogwood asked people to participate solely by sending out an email to a portion of our supporter list. Of those people, 20% opened the email, but only about 8% 'click-throughed' to the dedicated action page on the website. The action page included a form where people could record their call. Doing so was additional effort of course, and only about 4% of the people who landed on the page did so. 

These percentages seem low, but consider the amount of emails people get on a daily basis and it's actually quite impressive. Would you open, click, and call?

What Can You Do Today?

A trio of groups have launched a website dedicated to sending mass amounts of emails to various decision makers to prompt them to live up to their commitments to protect BC's world-renowned Great Bear Rainforest.  You can send an email, join the Facebook group, or submit your own soul-bearing photo :)

The main site is www.savethegreatbear.org 

The satisfACTION sub-blog is about activism in British Columbia - the methods, theories, and stories of how people are working together for more perfect communities . Ever felt a need to change things, but don't know where to start?  I'll showcase opportunities for personally satisfying and meaningful actions. Read the intro to the blog here.

Companies generally don't offer up new shares except on the back of an increase in net assets or value, like when Western Forest Products bought Cascadia Forest Products using cash generated from a share offering (this was the example Western's CFO used in the news article). Otherwise, existing shareholders would be backhanded by a dilution of the value of the shares that they already own.

Which begs the question:  since the purchase of Cascadia, where has Western acquired a net increase in $50 million in new assets or value? Especially given their recent asset selling streak...e.g. their New Westminster sawmill, Duke Point merchandiser, miscellaneous equipment, etc.

I suppose they have poured some upgrades into some of their mills, but that was more a consolidation of value following the Cascadia and Englewood takeovers rather than an addition, because the upgrades were linked to shutting down or curtailing operations elsewhere.

The only place I can see a gain of assets or value is from the BC Liberals generous deletion of 28,000 Ha from Western's TFLs, freeing up the lands' value as real-estate. In Western's books, the value of these lands are classified under 'non core assets'. Early on it seemed they were only considering selling a small portion of the deleted lands (e.g. their 2007 AGM presentation), but their 2008 AGM presentation suggests they're now looking at selling virtually all of it. 

Western has already sold some of the choicest bits of that land for a paltry $3 million, but plenty remains.

I'm no expert, but I would say you can look at Western's share offering in two ways:

1. As based on an increase in the value of their private lands resulting from the 2007 TFL deletions, and
   
2. As a request for a pay-day advance from their shareholders on the cash they hope to raise through the selling of the deleted land and other remaining 'non core assets'.
   

The trouble for Western is that the realizable value of the deleted lands (which comprises the majority of their remaining non-core asset value) is heavily influenced by the efforts of local residents and First Nations who don't want to see the land developed. This is a fight that Western has little control over because most people's beef rests squarely with government's decision to delete the lands in the first place.

If I was a Western shareholder I would decline the share offering and put my money elsewhere. Let Tricap buy up the whole $50 million; they own most of the company anyway (~70%), it'll be like giving a loan to themselves.

As a British Columbian however, I feel it's unfortunate that Tricap will increase their ownership in Western through this offering, because it hands out even more control of Western - a local company that through its predecessors has received decades worth of support and subsidies from our government all in the name of jobs - to Tricap, a wholly owned subsidiary of a distant company that has little interest in maintaining jobs if real-estate values beckon.

Everyone is waiting with baited breath to hear what the BC Supreme Court judge will decide on Western Forest Products (WFP) challenge of the Regional District bylaws restricting subdivision in the Juan De Fuca(JDF) Electoral Area.  Coastal communities, First Nations, environmentalists, surfers, hikers and the Capital Regional District all have an interest in the Court's decision.

WFP and members of the BC Landowners Association are challenging the decision-making structure of the CRD, and the Regional District's progressive zoning of previous forest lands in the JDF. The hearings took place on October 15 and 16, 2008.

Many people see the CRD’s change in zoning as a necessary response to the 2007 Provincial release of forest lands from WFP's Tree Farm Licenses. The bylaws have the potential of slowing and managing Western Forest Products aggressive subdivision applications on lands surrounding Jordan River.

The Court had indicated the decision would be made public by mid-November.  Now, close to a month later, there are no results in sight.  Everyday I check the Reasons for Judgment page of the B.C. Supreme Court anxious over the decision.  

Currently, WFP has until April 23 to have their massive proposed subdivisions in and around Jordan River approved under the old zoning.  A combination of widespread lack of support for their plans, inadequate information on watersheds and other ecological services, the economic downturn, and the time constraints are making the likelihood of WFP implementing their current proposals quite low.  WFP has not, as yet, submitted the necessary reports to the approving officer in order to receive approval.  The company is probably waiting for a decision before they put their resources into the necessary reports for their massive project.

This court decision will either be a huge step forward for local planning and the protection of the coast from urban sprawl, or a huge step back.  If the CRD loses it will mean that WFP will have all the time in the world to get approval for their proposed subdivisions.

The irony is that the CRD Planning Department for the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area is required to offer their opinion on WFP’s subdivision applications to the Approving Officer.  In fact, many of the required reports of the application go through the CRD before being signed off by the Approving Officer. 

Not surprising, the CRD does not support WFP’s current subdivision applications and have been very clear about this.   Unfortunately, rather than trying to work with the CRD, their zoning, and local people, WFP has challenged them every step of the way. They have chosen to bite the hand that could potentially feed them. 

WFP is also forcing the CRD to use the very limited CRD planning department resources to pay for their lawyers and court fees.  This tight planning budget comes out of the Juan de Fuca taxpayer’s pockets, and the local people who are footing the bill, are becoming less and less impressed with WFP.  

Also, there is a rumble of rumors that suggest that if the CRD are defeated by this case they would not let it go.  After such a long battle, they would take it to the next level and appeal the decision. Again, rumor has it that local governments are often favored in the Court of Appeal.

So while we are all waiting and keeping our fingers crossed one thing is for sure, WFP is not building any bridges around Jordan River. And, if the CRD and communities get what they want, they won’t be building any subdivision roads either.

Oh, what a tangled web WFP has weaved!

The last satisfACTION post gave an account of a recent issue 'call-in', where hundreds and hundreds of people across BC and Alberta picked up the phone and called the office of BC Premier Gordon Campbell and Shell Canada President Brian Straub, asking them to keep coalbed methane drilling from happening in BC's Sacred Headwaters. The volume of calls was so high that the person at the other end of the phone in the Premier's office was 'getting a kink in her neck', and Shell began directing calls to a 'customer service' answering machine.

A Victory!

One week later (Friday Dec 5th), Richard Neufeld, BC's Minister of Energy and Mines announces in this news release that he is delaying all coalbed methane activity in the Sacred Headwaters. This is a huge victory for the Tahltan and the collaborative Sacred Headwaters campaign in BC! 

Well done to everyone who ever did anything to add their voice to this cause; but the victory in the Sacred Headwaters came with an especially bitter defeat.

The Defeat

Perhaps to limit the effect the Sacred Headwaters announcement might have on unconventional gas business certainty in BC, and perhaps as a personally satisfying backhand to those who continue to oppose his government's enthusiasm for coalbed methane in BC, Neufeld announced at the same time that he was granting BP tenure for their massive Mist Mountain coalbed methane project in the East Kootenays. 

The people of Fernie who have been fighting the same fight, now need help.

Click here to read a media release with the response of Dogwood and several other groups to Neufeld's announcement.

 What You Can Do Today

A street rally is being organized in Fernie, and in Princeton in support of Fernie, for this Wednesday. Emails, letters, phone calls, petitions; these are all great ways to participate in your democracy, but nothing beats the coming-together feeling of a good peaceful rally or march. You actually get to meet and speak with other people who think the same way. 

(1)    If you live in Fernie or Princeton, put your democracy shoes on and hit the streets. If you don't live there, but know someone who does, let em' know! Click here for details. 

(2)    Coalbed methane drilling might not be happening in downtown Vancouver or Victoria, but this is an issue that affects the entire province. Show solidarity by calling Global TV and CBC to request that cameras cover Wednesday's events in Fernie and Princeton. Click here for numbers.

The satisfACTION sub-blog is about activism in British Columbia - the methods, theories, and stories of how people are working together for more perfect communities . Ever felt a need to change things, but don't know where to start?  I'll showcase opportunities for personally satisfying and meaningful actions. Read the intro to the blog here.

On the drive up he would start telling me how things used to be. A grassy hillside was once a forest and a silted over stream once a raging river. The Blue Mountains are among my favourite places in Jamaica and even as my father spoke of their decline, of songbirds that no longer sang and paths that wound through lost forest groves, I would still be struck by how beautiful the place is. Even that barren hillside looked stunning set against the backdrop of the mountains.

I wouldn't necessarily call my father an environmentalist but he was deeply saddened by much of what he saw and he could always draw the link between bad government policy and the degeneration of the environment. An IMF deal that forced the government to stop subsidizing kerosene had much to do with the deforestation as poor people chopped down ancient hardwood for cooking fuel. Hillsides were stripped of generations old forest to grow crops. No longer held in place by well rooted trees, the soil would wash away leaving land suitable only for pernicious 'saw grass', a grass that would leave the unwary walker with lacerated calves from its serrated leaves.

When we arrived at the old family cottage (now my uncles farm) we would usually take a walk down the hill to a small bridge. Here the sadness in my father's eyes would deepen. A small pool, choked with algae and weeds, was once his favourite swimming hole. I would look at the picturesque stone bridge.

It wasn't until I myself became a father that I understood the real reason for his sadness. It wasn't his loss that saddened him it was mine. He was sad for the son who could never appreciate the beauty he had seen. 

Recently someone asked me what motivated my work at Dogwood Initiative and for some reason those times spent with my father came to mind. BC too is a spectacular place and always will be, but everyone I know has a story of some special place that has been lost. Lost not only to them, but to the generations to come. In the future I'm working to create an old man can walk along the shore with his near adult son and talk about not what has been lost but what's still flourishing.  

The threat of tankers and oil spills and how we stopped them will barely be a story worth telling, it might distract us from the beauty that surrounds.