Reading mode: Light Dark

March for Jobs, Justice and The Climate

Go to last post
Tom Lusk said:
That strip mining site is just a tiny example of what is taking place in thousands of square miles in many areas of northern Canada.

The land is being irreversibly destroyed so that the least economically produced oil can be mined by corporations that are lightly regulated and care only about extending our dependence on fossil fuels at any cost.

Some of the most pristine land left on our planet is being poisoned and the waterways drying up and used as dumping grounds for toxins.

I do not blame the oil companies for this. I blame the politicians we have here in Canada that permit this disgrace to continue.

The oil companies are in business to make profits - maximum profits. That is their only concern and I can understand that.

Our government is supposed to be serving the needs of the people and protecting our lands and waters for use by future generations. They are failing miserably, but they can look forward to future benefits from the industries they are controlled by.

As for the if you do not like the oil companies, stop using their products line, that is just funny. Nobody expects or wants the them to cease production worldwide commencing tomorrow. But maybe they could cancel their plans to start drilling in the Arctic. Maybe they can stop fracking. Maybe they can stop open pit mining for tar sands oil.

Maybe they could use their mighty cash reserves to invest in alternative energy sources. Maybe they could think of themselves as energy producers instead of oil producers.

I guess that is too much to ask...
Click to expand...
It defy logic that the current ruling party has been in power for the last 10 years in Canada.
That's why the election in October is important - hence the march for Jobs, Justice and Climate.
The vote in October will indicate how the Canadian think of the Climate Change issue.
So cast your vote and have your say!
 
Bruce Trail Hiker said:
It defy logic that the current ruling party has been in power for the last 10 years in Canada.
That's why the election in October is important - hence the march for Jobs, Justice and Climate.
The vote in October will indicate how the Canadian think of the Climate Change issue.
So cast your vote and have your say!
Click to expand...
At last - someone that is engaged :)

So - what do justice and jobs have to do with climate?

That is the part I never understood.
 
Roland Karlsson said:
Bruce Trail Hiker said:
It defy logic that the current ruling party has been in power for the last 10 years in Canada.
That's why the election in October is important - hence the march for Jobs, Justice and Climate.
The vote in October will indicate how the Canadian think of the Climate Change issue.
So cast your vote and have your say!
Click to expand...
At last - someone that is engaged :)

So - what do justice and jobs have to do with climate?

That is the part I never understood.
Click to expand...
 
Tom... See, we CAN find common ground. I don't care for politicians either as they're ceasing to be a representative element in government. Unfortunately, I don't have the skill set to fill that bill. As for oil companies... I can't speak for what they're doing in Canada but, I did work for one for 12 1/2 years in a multi-media department (graphics and back-up photographer) before 750 of us were let go during a reorganization due to low oil prices. I've been self-employed since 1994 and, being born and raised here, have seen many benefits from them being here. Some of it's the trickle down from other companies working for them that need my graphic arts services. Naturally, they do make a lot of money but, the Alaskan government reaps 85-90% of it's income from taxing them. Fishing, mining and federal handouts could never sustain the waste that AK state government wallows in. One thing I do witness here is that oil companies are very benevolent - donating millions and millions of dollars to local hospitals to build pediatric cancer wards, to local colleges to construct 120 million dollar science centers, United Way, food shelters and the like. They don't have to; they just do it. I know quite a few people who still work for them. While there's a popular vilifying slogan "Corporations Aren't People" often used, I bed to differ. Someone made the company, it's regulated by boards of directors and, staffed by people like you and me so they're able to feed their families. These people also care about the environment, vote both liberal and conservative and are able to donate time and money to their favorite causes, often helping those that can't help themselves. As for alternate energy sources... I have a close friend who works in alternative, green energy for a large native corporation. He's told me that alternative energy (wind and solar) doesn't provide enough energy for the money that has to be spent to produce it. Up here, it would take warehouses full of batteries (his words, not mine and the batteries are not the most environmentally sound products) to store a fraction of what would be needed not to mention that, in the winter, the sun isn't out all that much or, for very long. Anyway, just some thoughts.
 
Roland Karlsson said:
emem said:
I'm not sure there is a need to lower the standard at all.
Click to expand...
We have made some progress in being more efficient. So, we can have higher standard than before and still use less. Yes. But, todays standard, including travelling, is too much. At least without more nuclear power.
Roland Karlsson said:
Through the middle of last century, wealth was distributed far more equitably than it is today.
Click to expand...
No.
Roland Karlsson said:
Today, as opposed to, say, the 1970s, the top 1% of "wealth holders" in developed countries are wealthier than they were 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
Yes
Roland Karlsson said:
The bottom 10% are worse off.
Click to expand...
No, absolutely not. All on this planet are better off. We all have more food, live longer and are better educated.
Click to expand...
Ok - that was careless in the way I stated it. What I meant was that if the income of the bottom 10% had increased at the same rate as the top percentile, they would have around 40% more income than they do today. They are worse off RELATIVE to the most wealthy, and this has happened over several decades.
Roland Karlsson said:
And the gap is not as big as before.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely untrue in Australia and the US. The gap between the very wealthy and the very poor is increasing (refer what I wrote above).
Roland Karlsson said:
http://www.gapminder.org

EDIT: the only thing that disturbs the picture that everone gets it better is AIDS. If you search in the gapminder data you can see a huge anomaly in some of the African countries, shortening life expectancy. You can see this easily when animating life expectancy with time. Suddenly some few countries just fall down while all other goes up.
Click to expand...
 
emem said:
Roland Karlsson said:
And the gap is not as big as before.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely untrue in Australia and the US. The gap between the very wealthy and the very poor is increasing (refer what I wrote above).
Click to expand...
I have no knowledge about either. So, sure it may be as you say. I would be surprised though. But, I have been surprised before :)

This totally (for this site) off topic ( :) ) discussion is regarding world sustainability though. And internal unjustices in countries (even if they are big as US) is not all that relevant.

In the world as a whole the gap is schrinking. Which means that the poorer parts of the planet get it better and better and they will therefore want more and more of the richer parts living pattern. Living patterns that are highly energy demanding. Just saying.
 
It seems that you have a point for US, if you measure since 1970. But, it is roughly as bad as 100 years ago. And at least if you look at the absolutely most rich. But ... this only tells that a very small amount of the citicens owns US. Not surprisingly, given the US political situation.

Here are data I found:

Income inequality in US



U.S._Income_Shares_of_Top_1%25_and_0.1%25_1913-2013.png








--
/Roland
X3F tools:
http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
https://github.com/rolkar/x3f
 
Hi, Roland... This will be my last post on this thread. I want to do my part to return this to a photographic forum. My apologies for straying.

The way I see what people refer to as "income inequality" is this: There will always be the poor and disadvantaged that need to be taken care of. That, in the U.S. anyway, is swinging quickly to "there will always be the poor, disadvantaged and entitlement recipients." Unfortunately, that's becoming a generational issue as well, handed down from parent to child. The family structure, I believe, as a lot to do with a successful working life and, that's disintegrating everywhere. All people have specific gifts and can go from the most remedial job to a millionaire with hard work. I've seen it happen to a friend who went from being a waiter in a Red Robin to a millionaire as a result of opening a coffee business and, subsequently selling it at the right time. You may have seen that for yourself in your lifetime. Now, depending upon who you are, you can be happy for that man or, you can envy him. Capitalism works if people are willing to. We happen to be living in a time (here) where our president would rather define racial and economic divisions rather than bring people together. I hope things are working out well for you in your part of the world.
 
I would expect the gap between the very rich and the very poor, whatever that constitutes, to go up. If a poor man invests one dollar and makes 100% he has 2 dollars. If a rich man invests 1,0000,000 and makes 100%, he has 2 million dollars. The gap has widened.

Your solution is to 'distribute wealth evenly' I guess. That's also known as Marxism. We aren't playing with a zero sum game here. Just because the 'rich get richer' doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. And because of upward mobility, the poor advance to the middle class and then the upper classes. So the categories aren't static. I was considered poor 30 years ago. Today I'm upper middle class income wise. In your world you want to redistribute wealth according to how you think it should be distributed, as long as it fits your statistical stereotype of what is 'fair'. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what is fair and confiscate money from those who have it just because you think it's ill-gotten. Most people with money have worked very hard for it.
 
Gman58 said:
I would expect the gap between the very rich and the very poor, whatever that constitutes, to go up. If a poor man invests one dollar and makes 100% he has 2 dollars. If a rich man invests 1,0000,000 and makes 100%, he has 2 million dollars. The gap has widened.

Your solution is to 'distribute wealth evenly' I guess. That's also known as Marxism. We aren't playing with a zero sum game here. Just because the 'rich get richer' doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer. And because of upward mobility, the poor advance to the middle class and then the upper classes.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. How many of the so-called poor, in your lifetime, are going to advance to the "upper classes"? That's indefensible codswallop - a total furphy. And yes, by and large, for the rich to get richer, the poor virtually have to get poorer. There is only so much wealth available in a given transaction. If you get more of the wealth in a particular transaction with me, then I have to get less. It really is very simple arithmetic, even if it is on a grand scale.
Gman58 said:
So the categories aren't static. I was considered poor 30 years ago. Today I'm upper middle class income wise. In your world you want to redistribute wealth according to how you think it should be distributed
Click to expand...
no, now you are attributing notions to me that I haven't said. We need to collectively put a cap on wealth. Do you know, just by way of example, if I were to win $1,000,000 a week on a lottery game, every week into the future, it would take me 1500 years to win as much as Bill Gates has now. Frankly, I find that sort of accumulation of wealth totally disgusting. And he just happens to the richest guy in the USA. There are many others who are individually worth billions. No, I think you're trying to defend the indefensible.
Gman58 said:
as long as it fits your statistical stereotype of what is 'fair'. I'm sorry, but you don't get to decide what is fair and confiscate money from those who have it just because you think it's ill-gotten. Most people with money have worked very hard for it.
Click to expand...
What absolute twaddle. The richest woman in Australia is rich because her father was an astute guy. She was just born in the right cot (crib). Bill Gates didn't work that much harder than you or I - he just got lucky with what, at the time, was just a cutesy idea he took to IBM. Anyway, I'm not talking about average people like you (unless your wealth is in the multi millions) - and yet average people like you are the defenders and protectors of the vastly wealthy. I can never figure that one out.
 
Who are you to 'put a cap on wealth'. Sounds like Communist China to me. Your utopia has been tried and it has never worked. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it has been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than any other system, or would you care to name another system that has done better? Capitalistic countries feed the world.

And if you think people stay in the same economic classes in capitalistic countries, most do not. Immigrants came to this country with nothing. In 1-2 generations they were middle class. Do you know anything about history?

And you are wrong as you can be about money and the economy being a zero sum game. Anyone with an ounce of education in economics knows that. You don't think wealth expands? My gain is not someone else's loss. When someone's salary increases, that doesn't mean anothers' decreases. Money supply expands. The Western governments are busy printing money right now. Geez.
 
Nothing like being lectured about "carbon footprints" by people who have ones the size of a small coal-fired power plant!! "Do as I say, not as I do" syndrome here.

Having said that, very good shots!
 
Oh, and just a thought for you to ponder. The entire human population of the earth could live in the state of Texas, with the same population density as London. Do the math.
 
Gman58 said:
Who are you to 'put a cap on wealth'. Sounds like Communist China to me. Your utopia has been tried and it has never worked.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what my idea of utopia might be. Typical presumptuous nonsense.
Gman58 said:
Capitalism may not be perfect, but it has been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than any other system, or would you care to name another system that has done better? Capitalistic countries feed the world.
Click to expand...
Unbridled American Capitalism is every bit as rapacious and colonial as England and France were a few hundred years ago but now you mainly colonise the world with money. Of course if that doesn't work, there's always the CIA and subterfuge, or in the case of really difficult foreign regimes, there's nothing like a good old military invasion. Some of your largest corporations, eg Google, Microsoft, Apple , earn billions of dollars across the world yet pay virtually no taxes in Australia and most other countries. Ain't Capitalism just great?
Gman58 said:
And if you think people stay in the same economic classes in capitalistic countries, most do not. Immigrants came to this country with nothing. In 1-2 generations they were middle class. Do you know anything about history?

And you are wrong as you can be about money and the economy being a zero sum game. Anyone with an ounce of education in economics knows that.
Click to expand...
A student of Friedman I presume?
Gman58 said:
You don't think wealth expands? My gain is not someone else's loss. When someone's salary increases, that doesn't mean anothers' decreases. Money supply expands. The Western governments are busy printing money right now. Geez.
Click to expand...
What a simplistic view of things you have. If (mainly American) pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products, where does that money come from? Oh I know, thanks to money expanding, everyone just asks their boss for a raise to cover the extra cost of pharmaceuticals.
 
You have a lot of charges, no facts though. You are the typical complainer. When your arguments are refuted, you just keep move on to something else. I'm waiting for you to explain how economies are zero-sum. Just prove that and I'll give you an ounce of credibility. Now, here is where you deflect and bring up something else unrelated to that simple question.

Cheers
 
Gman58 said:
You have a lot of charges, no facts though. You are the typical complainer. When your arguments are refuted, you just keep move on to something else. I'm waiting for you to explain how economies are zero-sum. Just prove that and I'll give you an ounce of credibility. Now, here is where you deflect and bring up something else unrelated to that simple question.

Cheers
Click to expand...
They aren't zero-sum. The collective and per-capita wealth of the world is enormously greater than 1000, 500, or even 100 years ago. Capitalism is what drove that change.
 
Bruce Trail Hiker said:
Actor and activist Jane Fonda adds star power to march for climate change today. Also in attendance were David Suzuki and Stephen Lewis.

The event was organized by Naomi Klein - a Canadian author, social activist, and filmmaker known for her political analyses and criticism of corporate globalization and of corporate capitalism.

K-3 with Tamron 70-200mm.

Cheers

Man Khun

2650dc8fcb0b4633bef81c93f4197133.jpg

e1688f2142324a74809bec54636dbea5.jpg

e6d45b34ab204d06a7a16fe9bd0e3679.jpg

aa1131a751c34f9e9b20d6d172e002b2.jpg

95962699fd8e43c99d416a192e80f822.jpg

3f73fbff1010460f973b821c16a7a77a.jpg

247d2625ee70487497a5798000c54816.jpg

d111ca3effcf43d497867554b4c5d8ff.jpg

408aea329e6e490fa717dff984f48710.jpg

44a2e19e4b7c43178e192730c6a580fc.jpg

7d1ee937197e47159663e54ac139145c.jpg
Click to expand...
Putting politics aside, I am seeing some very odd skin tones. Granted, I am looking at some elderly celebrities. I'm seeing a lot of sun damaged skin and other dermatological issues. Still, the colors make some of these people look a bit green, and not with envy.

I always objected to the rendition of skin tones with Toshiba sensor cameras of the D7100/K3 generation, to the extent that I prefered the Sony sensor in the K5II/D7000. The D7200 looks a bit better. I haven't seen enough samples from the K3 II to decide if it is acceptable on a subjective level.

It is worth noting that every modern digital camera is the product of a truly global economy and the use of fossil fuels. We have Japanese companies producing camera bodies and lens in countries such as the Philippines, Thailand and China, products that are shipped through fossil fuel burning airliners and increasingly efficient container ships. In contrast, we used to have a huge film industry, producing huge quantities of toxic chemicals, most of which were released into the environment. I would wager that the entire digital imaging industry has a smaller environment footprint over a decade than Kodak had during a single year of the film era.

Generally speaking, the world is becoming a better place. Don't worry. Be happy.

If you do need to worry about something, worry about skin cancer. Sunbathing might be more dangerous than driving a car.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ds-people-car-accidents-year-study-finds.html People still put UV filters on lenses in the digital era, but don't bother to worry about the UV light that's giving them skin cancer. Jane Fonda is wearing a hat. That's probably the best lesson to take away from these photographs. Wear a hat, like old Jane Fonda.
 
Last edited:
Roland Karlsson said:
Gman58 said:
Oh, and just a thought for you to ponder. The entire human population of the earth could live in the state of Texas, with the same population density as London. Do the math.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are probably right.

There is not much food grown in London though.
Click to expand...
Do like the Japanese; grow food in the spaces in roundabouts and on highway medians.
 
multiple thread response:

1 "nothing worth saying was ever said through a megaphone" ... how about "SHARK!"?

2 Nice pics, curious about whether the Tammy 70-200 is the new or old version (because the ability to get decent focus speed and IS with the old version is one of the reasons I'm considering switching from Canon to Pentax, that and the ability to use my old Takumar on a DSLR body)

3 Nice to see that there are still people willing to protest, although I suspect the value of a protest is inversely proportional to the number of celebrities involved. (they become the story).

4 Yep, climate change is real, and it's anthropogenic. I'm just not sure the kind of symbolic carbon gesturing people are focusing on is going to save us. (eg reusable shopping bags. The only differences between a "reusable" shopping bag and a "single use" bag is that the "reusable" one takes a lot more energy to produce, and the act of taking it back to the shop. How many "reusable" bags can you fit in your pocket? There is one local supermarket that charges 5c for plastic bags (or $2 for "reusable" ones.). "Do you want bags today?" they ask. "No thanks", I reply, "I have my reusable ones" and I pull from my pocket a wad of old single use bags from a rival supermarket.)

5 Yep, only degrowth can save us but degrowth will not be possible unless we very quickly transition to an entirely new system of money. Our current monetary system cannot function at all without growth.

6 There's a certain irony in us discussing this on a photography forum because, as camera consumers (rather than photo-takers) we exemplify the problem. Most us us own photographic equipment that would have completely blown our minds 10 years ago, gear that could take any picture we could conceive, but we're obsessed with upgrading, upgrading, upgrading. How soon can we get the mkII, mkIII, mkIV model with the next set of must-have features. Why is Canon's product cycle so slow. Oh god it's nearly 3 years since the 70D, surely there must be an 80D soon. Where is that Sony A7000. I want it now. Throw out all the tooling, retool all the factories, give me more cameras now with more acronyms in the specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top