Poaching is generally divided into two groups: those that poach animals to sell on the black market, and those that poach to survive. The question that was addressed in this “Planet Earth” documentary, and the one that I pose to you now, is when it comes to feeding a starving family, or protecting the health of an animal population, which is most important?

In short, which do we value more, a protected animal or a human being? Survival poaching will continue, especially in areas of the world where the food itself, not just the means to buy it, is scarce.

This debate between people who are trying to survive and conservationists trying to save a species really drove home for me that *poverty* is always part of the equation.

Thoughts, anyone?

As a precursor to the April 12th post, please enjoy the below brief video of some of the wonder of our planet.

I don’t doubt for a moment that there are people that buy organic food because they think it’s more nutritious. However, the reason that I purchase organic produce some of the time was not examined by this study. When it looks good, I buy organic produce because I really don’t like the idea of eating fruits and vegetables that have been sprayed down with pesticides and other chemicals. I don’t like the potential damage to the soil and aquifers, nor to the people who breathe it in over time. I don’t think that the base mineral and vitamin content are changed or increased somehow, simply because a vegetable has been grown organically – but I am glad that there are farms (locally and around the world) who put a value on growing their produce without a dousing of chemicals.

Great examples of local farm produce, including organic products, can be found in the heart of downtown Regina (on the 1900 block of Scarth Street) every Wednesday and Saturday until 1pm. Now that you know that it’s all equally nutritious, indulge and check it out!

There’s a new buzz word that I really dig that’s being used to describe this conundrum – eco-discrimination. The hot topics of the day, such as the unanimous (albeit grudgingly) support in the Saskatchewan Legislature of nuclear power, or the equally hot debate surrounding Regina’s new stadium, often neglect that massive amounts of discrimination go into decisions like these. Especially when it comes to location – and the consequences are grave.

There’s a reason that Regina’s landfill is located just outside the city, right by our penitentiary. No one wanted a damn landfill in his or her neighbourhood. The consequences? Environmental standards require that garbage dumps be built on top of at least 8-10 feet of clay when they’re in proximity to a water supply or aquifer. Regina’s landfill is built above only 2 feet of clay, putting an aquifer that supplies vast numbers of Regina citizens with water at risk. It was viewed as the only acceptable place… and we will pay the price.

Mosaic Stadium, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, was built in one of the lowest income communities in Regina. Why? Because these citizens had little means of protesting it – unlike the successful protests that prevented the stadium being built elsewhere. Moreover, let’s set aside the accompanying noise levels for a moment. Stadiums have the ability to bring communities together with sport and cultural events – if they can afford to go to them. So, how nice for little Timmy or Suzie, getting to watch all the people going to events in the stadium across the street that they don’t have the money to attend. Does anyone else see the irony here?

As a last example of eco-discrimination, take the Saskatchewan government’s newfound collective support for nuclear power. Numerous Indigenous communities are bracing themselves for the inevitable battle for environmental and human rights. The fact remains that many lucrative, beneficial, yet environmentally invasive projects are situated incredibly close to Indigenous communities whose opinions are neither valued nor wanted by industry or government. One needs only to look to natural resource industry for existing examples.

Location matters – both of those making the decisions, but also the communities that will be affected. We must think critically about why certain locations are chosen for projects like stadiums and power plants, and who comprises the communities that live in proximity. Eco-discrimination takes many forms, but the underlying commonality is that it takes advantage of communities with little recourse to defend their rights. If you are in favour of Regina’s new stadium or prospective nuclear power plant, I ask you – whose backyard should they be built in?

 I think that partisanship is both detrimental and ridiculous, in politics and in life. Take this magazine. Do I have to be on the left to talk about the causes and effects of poverty? Do I have to be on the right to have a strong corporate business model and believe in microdevelopment? Absolutely not.

The Regina Streets Magazine has always been staunchly non-partisan because we value the opinions of more than one ‘perceived’ side of a coin. To create better dialogue, debate, and most importantly, change – we must set aside the words and attitudes that partisanship embodies, and work together. I can only give purposeful effort, and hope that one day I’ll get the opportunity to work for this change together with you…

The N.D.P.’s web site has a very interesting passage about protecting the environment:Saskatchewan is blessed with abundant natural resources, which provide us with jobs and with a strong economy. Those same natural resources can help power our future, and help us ensure that we leave a clean and healthy environment to the generations to come. Wind power, biomass, geothermal energy, solar power – these are just a few examples where Saskatchewan can and should be leading. Unfortunately, we are starting to fall behind.

I cannot agree with one paragraph any more.  Saskatchewan is blessed with a plethora of natural resources that provide ample opportunities to power our province (and the rest of the country).  However, that paragraph forgot to mention two energy sources that I believe will be key in powering Saskatchewan into the 22nd century.

Nuclear power is a contentious issue that the N.D.P. has spoken out against with great vigor.  However, I am not sure that I agree with being against nuclear.  The most damaging argument against nuclear power is the threat of a Chernobyl-esque meltdown.  Strong argument, but frankly, nuclear is still much, much better than the coal fired energy which is darkening our skies and polluting our environment.

I am also rather surprised that the N.D.P. failed to mention the possibility of hydro-electricity in Saskatchewan.  Not only is hydro completely renewable, it would also create jobs in Northern Saskatchewan – an area which has gone through hard times, but which seems poised to become a very powerful economic region of Canada.

Those two squabbles aside, I am impressed by the N.D.P. and their efforts to keep the environment firmly planted in our minds.  Fact is, we don’t have any place else to go so we have to protect this planet!

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Saskatchewan Party will undertake an analysis of alternatives to banning the use of plastic grocery bags.

Let’s ignore this sentence’s logical/grammatical shortcomings and focus on the meaning it conveys.  While it is definitely non-committal, the Saskatchewan Party vowed to research some alternatives to plastic bags!!  Frankly, I applaud them for this.

I see them every time I walk around downtown Regina – dirty, discarded plastic bags litter our entire city.  And the problem is not only municipal, it is global.  Millions of bags end up in the environment every year – it takes hundreds of years for them to break down.  They wreak havoc while they are breaking down – they harm wildlife, poison our water supply and litter our streets.

So kudos to our ruling party for looking into alternatives to plastic.  The time has come to ban plastic bags across our province and research is the logical first step.  I cannot wait to see this research transformed into legislation.