An Economic Fable

Once upon a time there was a family who lived in a large mansion with many rooms and a huge mortgage. The father made all the decisions as to the upkeep of the house and the health and welfare of the family members who were all expected to contribute towards the funds needed for all to live in the house. Although in the past the contribution from the family members exceeded the expenses and resulted in having some savings in the bank no payments on the mortgage were made and the bank account was raided for foolish spending. Unfortunately over the next few years many of the family lost their jobs or were reduced to working part time and were unable to pay their full share, this resulted in the father saying that he must cut down on the maintenance of the house and everybody would have to have smaller lunches to save money. Everyone except himself and his favourite cousins that is.


When the gardener said that the manure run off was getting into the well he was fired, when the cook said that she needed to know how many folks there were in each room in order to distribute the food fairly she was told 'you dont need to know that', when the cleaners tried to tell the residents about the toxic chemicals being used they were told shut up or be fired. If fact all the workers were told to not talk to the residents and that all information about the household must be approved by father and those who failed to do that would be kicked out in the cold. This was particularly true of anyone who questioned his 'economic plan' which was never really fully explained to the family.


When the family started complaining of the cuts that were resulting in the deterioration of the house and less food on the table he spent even more money installing TVs in every room with a steady stream of self congratulatory programs tell all how good he was at running the house and they should not worry and be happy. As the complaints started mounting up he cleverly 'saved' more money by refusing to pay for work already scheduled and reducing payments to the doctors from up the street who looked after various family members and thus eventually he was able to say to the residents 'I think we will have more cash coming in that going out next year' (so long as we don’t pay down anything on that massive mortgage). 'I will give those of you who have the best jobs a break on the rent and just so the rest of you don’t get too pissed off if you have kids you are feeding I will give you a few more peas on your plate!


Meanwhile he sent a few of the family on an expensive overseas trip but as the bills for that would not show up for a while did not include that in his budget, and the bill for the new row boats to keep the geese of the pond at the top of the garden would not be due for a few years so that does not count. Nor would the 4 new, expensive to maintain, fancy cars just ordered (shush, don’t tell anyone) matter because by the time the bills come in he figures on eliminating any one who questions his spending habits. With this in mind he did not consider that his sales of manure from the side yard to the west would probably not bring in as much as promised, and some of his sales men were talking of quitting. Nor did he consider that the paint was peeling, the widows were cracked and the wind blowing through cracks in the walls of the house in many places, these things could be ignored from his cozy well maintained apartment in the west wing where he and his favourites lived. And so father lived on in his dream world whilst the family fumed , but for how long we wonder........


That is far from the end of the fable, the family has yet to hear the full story from some of the favourites who have emerged from the west wing battered and torn and muttering “don't ever disagree with father, he's nuts”


Oh and one thing more, daddy’s name is Steve but he prefers to be called Sir Stephen!

Tough Morning

Just returned from taking our faithful visitor greeter,  squirrel chaser, friend and companion, four legged friend on her final trip. Not an easy thing to do but after 12 years of patrolling our 30 acres of bush she will  be wandering no more and her recent inability to do much more than lay on the couch will no longer bother her. RIP Maisie.

Maisie in 2009

Are There .'Opportunities' in Bruce-Grey?

Bayshore News reports that a new study from the Four County Labour Market Planning Board reveals that Grey county has lost about 200 businesses in the last year whilst Bruce county has gained about 260 but that “the biggest driver of jobs in the local economy is self-employment”.

That the job market is basically stagnant in Grey-Bruce and that more and more folks are turning to self employment should hardly be a surprise to those looking for employment. A quick look at the job listings on Kijiji or the Job Bank will show that there are very few decent jobs available in this area and that many of those that are available are part time, temporary or 'agency' jobs. Its no wonder that folks turn to self employment to bring in a few dollars to the family table.
They also say that 'one key going forward is finding ways to keep people in the area, including young people who tend not to see opportunities in the four counties'. Also that 'another key to future job growth is getting high speed broadband internet into the rural areas, something Grey County has been pushing for over the last few years'.

Looking at those job listings we see very little encouragement for youth to remain in our area and not much more for those older folks who were laid off during the 'recession' and are still looking for full time work. If the economy is recovering I see little evidence of it in Grey-Bruce, and whilst better internet connections in the area may entice a few companies to set up here in rural SW Ontario I would not hold your breath waiting for a sudden influx of employment.
So no surprises here, the big question is how do we reverse the trend of jobs and youth heading to the big cities leaving the future of rural Ontario in limbo. Whilst I have great concern in that area I have no answers, I do hope the Four County Labour Market Planning Board or others have some!

More bad news for bees: The new "F" word

Have you heard of flupyradifurone? Probably not, unless you work for
the federal government agency poised to approve this new pesticide for
use in Canada. But take note: This new "F" word is bad news for bees.

Flupyradifurone is an insect-killing systemic pesticide similar to the
controversial neonicotinoid, or neonic, family of bee-killing
chemicals. When applied to seeds or soil, it's absorbed by plant roots
and travels to leaves, flowers, pollen and nectar, making the plant
potentially toxic to insects.

This past summer, the international Task Force on Systemic
Pesticides<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/O0Y0g4OU00000V470E0N26D> analyzed
800 scientific studies and concluded that systemic pesticides like
neonics are harming bees, butterflies, birds and worms and should be
phased out globally. The European Union banned three
neonics<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/Q0YU06D0V804O002N00F4g0> for "crops
attractive to bees", but the European Environment Agency says that's
just a starting point, and recommends regulators look at similar
pesticides and take into account potential harmful effects on aquatic
invertebrates, birds and other insects. The EEA also found "mounting
scientific evidence has been systematically suppressed for many years
and early warnings were ignored."

Inexplicably, Canada's Pest Management Regulation Agency has yet to
respond to the Task Force findings and now wants to approve a new
systemic pesticide. What's especially troubling is that, in its
description, the PMRA
states<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/u900006D440N0G00YgOVU20>
flupyradifurone "may pose a risk" to bees, birds, worms, spiders,
small mammals and aquatic bugs, and that it doesn't readily break down
in water, air or sunlight and may carry over to the following growing
season. When it enters streams, rivers and wetlands, "it may persist
for a long time."
Like neonics, flupyradifurone is a nerve poison, acutely toxic to bees
if ingested. As in the past, we don't fully understand the cumulative
effects of the increasing amounts of today's insecticides, pesticides,
fungicides and other chemicals being applied to crops across the
country.

Neonicotinoids are showing up more frequently and in higher
concentrations than the harmful chemicals they replaced. A study last
year found 90 per cent of Saskatchewan prairie potholes contained
residual neonics<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/TH0VY0g020006Da0044ONU0> in
the spring, before farmers planted their fields. Research from the
U.S. Midwest found neonics in all 79 samples taken from nine
rivers<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/lYDOI000426g0U0N4000b0V>. Similar
results have been found in wetlands, streams and rivers in the
southwest U.S., Georgia and California.

It's not even clear whether the widespread use of neonic seed
treatments increases agricultural yields. A recent report from the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/e006cU00000DVY0O42J4g0N> regarding
soy crop treatments concluded, "these seed treatments provide little
or no overall benefits to soybean production in most situations.
Published data indicate that in most cases there is no difference in
soybean yield when soybean seed was treated with neonicotinoids versus
not receiving any insect control treatment."

The European Environment Agency also found a 2004 ban on neonicotinoid
chemicals by France for sunflower and maize crops hasn't negatively
affected productivity. In fact, yields were higher in 2007 than they'd
been in a decade.

You'd think we'd learn from past experience with persistent and
bioaccumulative pesticides like DDT and
organophosphates<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/F26D400dK0V0g0YO000UN04>,
and the more recent research on neonicotinoids. DDT was widely used
until Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring drew attention to its
negative impacts on ecosystems, wildlife and humans. Many, but not
all, organophosphate pesticides have also been pulled from widespread
use because we learned their neurotoxic effects posed serious risks to
humans and wildlife.

Rather than approving new pesticides that may harm pollinators, birds
and other animals, including humans, we need better ways to protect
crops. A recent report, "Alternatives to neonicotinoid insecticides
for pest control<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/r40e0U0Y0DL460V2g00O0N0>",
published in the journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
suggests further research and methods including "diversifying crop
rotations, altering the timing of planting, tillage and irrigation,
using less sensitive crops in infested areas, applying biological
control agents," and other lower-risk alternatives.

We need to stop contaminating the environment with neonics and related
systemic pesticides. Approving flupyradifurone would take us in the
wrong direction. Canada's Pest Management Regulation Agency is
accepting comments on flupyradifurone approval until November 3. You
can submit through the
PMRA<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/q2UV0N064M004Y00D0gf00O> or David
Suzuki Foundation<http://go.davidsuzuki.org/s0gY04206D0N0V0O4g00N0U>
websites.

Putting bees and ecosystem functioning at risk endangers us all. It's
time to find a better way.

As origionaly published on the Homestead Forum