Canada gone Rogue

Note: This article was written Dec 9th, before there had been a single #IdleNoMore protest or dance. I believe the ferocity with which the #IdleNoMore movement has taken off strongly supports my thesis.

Canadians need help to wake up and see what is happening to their country.

Canada has long been respected around the world for it's tolerance, democracy, open borders, and friendliness. However, in the year-and-a-half since our last Federal election, Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, has transformed the country into a rogue petro-state, reviled around the world, and exercising dictatorial control over Canada's people and laws.

This is now recognized by countries around the globe. On November 29th, 2012 at the United Nations General Assembly MP John Baird, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, was introduced to take the stage. No welcoming applause was given:

What follows is a reminder of some of the damage Harper has inflicted on Canada, bringing us up to date (to the beginnings of #IdleNoMore).

Harper first became Prime Minister in February 2006, although he was not content with his minority government. He called another election in October 2008 to try to get a majority, and again failed to do so winning 37% of the vote. However, just six weeks later, Harper prorogued parliament (cut short the parliamentary session) to stop the opposition parties conducting a vote of no confidence. Proroguing is meant to be used to allow the government to refocus, but it was used in this case to stop a majority coalition (representing the majority of Canadians) from bringing down the minority government. Harper again prorogued parliament in 2009, this time to avoid ongoing investigations into the Afghan detainees affair. Dr. Nelson Wiseman, Professor at the University of Toronto said at the time, "no Prime Minister has so abused the power to prorogue."

Abuse of power. That is something the Canadian people are now becoming used to.

In March 2011, Stephen Harper's government was found in contempt of parliament, which is without precedent in Canada or any other Commonwealth country. It clearly demonstrated "the Conservatives’ profound disdain toward the only democratic national institution we have" (Thomas Walkom).

In May 2011, Canada voted again and gave the Harper government a majority in parliament. What happens in Canada when a wannabe dictator shows disdain for democracy? We make him into an actual dictator!

Except that we didn't. Some of us did. A minority. In fact, only around 38% of the popular vote went to Harper, although that somehow gave Harper 54% of the seats in parliament–a majority. That's a 16% difference. And 16% is over 5,000,000 people. The Conservative party has managed to rig the elections in such as way as to steal the votes of five million people. It's also worth stating that the 38% is of those who voted–only about 25% of the population who legally can vote, voted for Harper (roughly 8.5 million people).

But that wasn't enough for Harper. On election day, illegal robocalls were orchestrated by members of the Conservative party (of which Harper is the leader) as a voter suppression tactic to try to stop supporters of other parties from voting. The investigation continues, but there are currently around 200 ridings–two-thirds of the total–alleging that robocalls were made within their boundaries. Many of the ridings were won by tiny margins–as little as 18 votes. The closest 11 ridings all report voting irregularities of this nature, and in these ridings as little as 0.05% of the vote made the difference. Stephen Harper is not the legitimate Prime Minister of Canada, and should not control a majority parliament.

In June 2010, the G20 were to be held in Canada. Harper decided that the meeting should take place in downtown Toronto (Harper hates Toronto), and proceeded to militarise the downtown core, spending over $1.1 billion–the most expensive weekend in Canadian history. Pittsburgh G20 a few years before had a budget of $18 million.

Fortress walls were built, and police were brought in from other provinces. Peaceful protestors and passers-by were kettled–surrounded by police, beaten, and then arrested without cause. Over 1000 people were arrested–the largest mass-arrests in Canadian history–and peaceful protests were repeatedly dispersed using violent force. Ombudsman André Marin called it “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history.” Canada was left reeling from the violent blow done to its citizens.

In December 2011, Peter Kent, the Minister of the Environment in Canada, announced Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord. Canada remains the only country to do so. Canada would have been fined $14 billion for failing to meet its emission cuts targets. To add to the insult, the announcement was made one day after countries around the world agreed to a treaty to limit carbon emissions in COP17 in Durban. The following year in COP18 (Doha), Canada was called a "pariah" and there were questions raised as to whether Canada should have any stand at the table while negotiating a second Kyoto protocol.

The rhetoric and language used by the Harper government has also become extremist. In February 2012 the government introduced Bill C-30, a bill that contained draconian internet spying and anti-privacy laws. It was widely condemned, in much the same way SOPA was condemned in the US. However, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews claimed the opposition “either [had to] stand with us, or with the child pornographers.” Really. That's what he said.

In line with Harper's narrow-sighted vision for an oily Canadian future, the Harper government also introduced an 'anti-terrorism' bill that labelled environmentalists as terrorists. John Bennett, executive director of Sierra Club Canada condemned the bill, saying "It’s an indirect suggestion that somehow environmentalism is attached to terrorism and that’s just wrong." Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, along with Harper himself, made the claim that foreign-funded, radical environmentalists were threatening Canada's economy–and by extension, Canada itself–by trying to stop oil pipelines from being built. NDP MP Megan Leslie stated, "I find it offensive that there is a list that puts people trying to protect the environment on the same list as white supremacists."

While Harper was the leader of the opposition he supported dissent, stating, "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern." Now, it seems, he’s trying as hard as he can eliminate dissent completely, silencing scientists and most recently bringing down vital firewalls required for the country to remain democratic. There goes his moral authority.

Another tactic the Harper government has used, which both damages Canadian democracy and highlights the governments extremist agenda, is to push through omnibus budget bills. A budget bill is effectively a vote of confidence, and so any Conservative MP that votes against it is effectively voting themselves out of office. In June 2012, Bill C-38, the laughably-named "Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act," was pushed through the House of Parliament unmodified after Tory MPs rejected thousands of proposed amendments. The bill was 425 pages, and, amongst other things, removed nearly all environmental protection from Canadian water, soil and air–none of which had anything to do with implementing the budget. The environmental regulation was stripped to stop opposition to oil pipelines and expansion of the destructive Albertan tar sands. The bill also removed the need for Canada to protect its species that are threatened with extinction. Harper is willing to wipe out millions of years of evolutionary history in order to pursue his extremist, oil-based agenda.

However, there is still a major legal force that can stop oil pipelines being built in Canada–the First Nations. In Canada, the First Nations are sovereign nations that hold control of their land, and the Federal government must seek their approval for projects like pipelines. Harper's second omnibus budget bill in 2012, Bill C-45, is designed to strip as much power from the First Nations as possible. The bill has been described as unconstitutional and an abuse of power. Again, Harper's government rejected all the proposed amendments and used its house majority to push it through. Many First Nations chiefs went to parliament to protest the bill's illegality, but were rebuffed by security.

Harper is also tabling many other bills that are designed to strip the First Nations of power: Bills C-27, C-428, S-2, S-6, S-8, S-207 and S212. This includes the wonderfully-named bill, "Safe Drinking Water for First Nations," which would actually remove funding and responsibility for providing safe drinking water. Onion Lake Cree Nation Chief Wallace Fox recently described the Harper government as 'enemies'. On December 10th 2012, thousands of Canadians across the country came together for the #IdleNoMore day of action. You should have been there.

It needs stating that this is not just a criticism of the Left towards the Right. The ~193 nations of the United Nations are politically very mixed, including extremes on both sides, as well as everything in-between. The silence that John Baird received at the UN last week is now echoing across the planet. John Baird was unique in receiving no welcome–both Israel and Palestine, as well as every other speaker from every other nation received a welcoming applause. Canada is the odd one out.

It's also needs stating that Stephen Harper does not necessarily represent the Conservative party. Stephen Harper and his cabinet are extremists seeking a narrow future for Canada based on oil. They have hijacked the Conservative party and are enforcing their will on them, but there are many Tory MPs who resent the bullying, as well as many loyal members of the party who are disgusted by the tactics being used and the direction the country is going. Those Conservatives need to stand up and speak out for their country, just as much as members of every other party.

The politics of this country should no longer be measured on the Left-Right spectrum–our politics today needs to be measured on the Tyranny-Freedom scale. The longer Harper is allowed to retain power, the further Canada will devolve towards tyranny. How long will we–the majority–allow this to happen?

Public Letter to Richard Ubbens

Dear Mr Rubbens,

I am writing today as a concerned citizen, having seen the damage that was done in your name to the city, people and community of Toronto. The destructions of the People's Peas Gardens is a shameful thing that cannot be undone, but its crime can be acknowledged and publicly apologized for.

I am not a member of Occupy, but as a thinking human being who values democracy, community and life, I certainly share many of its concerns. I am also not a member of Occupy Gardens, although I do recognize that we have an abundance of problems with our current food-production model of agribusiness. I am a full-time employed web developer, who deeply cares about Toronto, and tries to encourage healthy community projects wherever I see them.

The People's Peas Garden in Queens Park was one such project. It increased ten-fold in size over the summer, due to the excitement of the community to get involved and contribute to it. Although I was not a member of the community, and only enjoyed the garden as a passerby, I recognize that the community involved in it was strong and vibrant, giving people a fantastic reason to enjoy, and love, one of Toronto's great parks. This love is certainly something that you, as the Toronto Parks Director, should be excited about, and try to encourage at every opportunity. As a public servant, your job is to serve the community.

The People's Peas Garden was, admittedly, illegal. However, things that are illegal are not necessarily wrong (and vice versa) - sometimes the law needs to catch up to reality. The People's Peas Garden was a grassroots project by people who saw problems with the City as it is, and wished to be allowed to enact a dream of a better Toronto. The people of Toronto encounter many problems when they wish to do similar things: community garden waiting lists are long, Toronto schools are failing to teach food-growing to our children, and there are very few places that people are able to grow their own food. As the city (sadly) increasingly build more and more condos, this demand for public space will only increase. It is on you, as the Parks Director, to make sure that this need is met. To fail to do so will be a massive failing in your role.

However, the gravest shame in all of this was not the destruction of the garden - it was the manner in which the garden was destroyed. The Peas Garden was planted while police watched, back in May. The authorities were well aware of its existence all summer, yet did nothing about it. The Peas Garden had also been careful to erect a sign with contact information, so that the city could contact them - a sign which you publicly denied the existence of, even though there is footage of a Parks worker taking down that very sign. This can only be considered to be a brazen lie, which again, brings shame to your position. And finally, the garden was destroyed just two days before the scheduled harvest and Thanksgiving feast. It is clear to any outside observer, as I am sure it was clear in your mind, that this was an intentional, pre-meditated move to cause as much pain as possible to the community members who were involved in the garden, as well as to harm the City of Toronto as a whole in an attempt to crush its creative spirit and desire for a better city.

After knowingly waiting for five months to remove the so-called 'illegal' garden, you waited until it would cause the most damage, and inflict the most pain. It is for this cruelty that a public apology is demanded. I expect both this apology, and a direct response.

Yours sincerely,
Stuart Basden

More info:
http://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/toronto-destroys-occupygardens-free-food-garden.html
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/johnbon/2012/09/free-community-food-garden-removed-city-toronto-workers

Common Space?

The Commons are publicly owned 'space', set apart for the betterment of all. Village greens are a historical symbol of the Commons - a central place in rural communities where anyone could graze their livestock, as well a a place for community festivals and celebrations. While village greens used to be the centre of many communities, they are now a rare anachronistic occurrence, the prime real estate (as it is now seen) having been sold off by local councils to developers. Only a few remain as public parks.

The village green isn't the only loss to the commons, but it was one of the earliest losses. In the past century, and particularly in the past few decades, we've seen the Commons shrink is almost every way conceivable - indeed, the Commons have become such an easy target for public service cuts that "every way conceivable" may well be the extent of it. To take something out of the Commons, all that needs to happen is for it to become commodified. And the Commons are often lost through ideology, not necessity. Austerity is one such ideology.

Common Defence

In the past year the Mayor of Toronto (a right-wing businessman who inherited his wealth) attempted to close a third of Toronto libraries, claiming it was necessary to balance the budget. Libraries are one of the oldest institutions of the Commons, and the public outcry was fortunately strong enough to stop Mayor Rob Ford's plan. A few months later, the city actually discovered it had a $300 million surplus, revealing Ford's flawed ideology as being out-of-touch with reality.

Another failed attempt to sell off the Commons occurred last year in the UK, when the Austerity-driven Tory party attempted to sell off woodlands to international developers and power companies. It would have been the largest change of land ownership since the Second World War, and would have resulted in the loss of over 250,000 hectares (an area the size of Luxembourg). Again, the public outcry was enough to stop it.

Common Sales

However, not all the Commons have been successfully defended. In many countries, the water infrastructure is still part of the Commons, water being a necessity for (human) life. Privatization of water is often met with mass protests, as people (rightly) fear for their very survival. Until 1989, only 4 countries in the world had privatized their water, but after Margaret Thatcher (another right-winger) privatized water in the UK, 27 more countries have have also seen their water privatized. Against this, Bolivia saw historic protests in 2000 as water prices seared to 30% of income. Greece and Italy also saw anti-water-privatization protests in 2011, and much of the Americas are in long-term battles against it, often deadly.

The Internet is another area of the Commons, which is now under continuous attacks from bills such as SOPA, CISPA and Canada's Bill C-11. Health-care (particularly elder-care) has also seen massive moves into the private sector, often resulting in elder abuse and 'flying visits', where care staff hours are so stretched they only have time for the bare minimum of 'care'. Art has also seen the attack, as public funding is cut and art projects are increasingly forced to look for private money (often resulting in certain 'restrictions').

Common Losses

Another major concession of the Commons has been research. Research used to be done primarily by publicly-funded universities, and the discoveries would be kept in the Commons, available for all. This allowed for a diverse and creative era of progress, resulting in many useful inventions. It also allowed researchers to take chances, combining fields of study, and making leaps in human thought. However, as public funding for universities has been continually reduced, researchers have been forced to look for private grants to continue their research.

For example, Monsanto and other private interests now contribute more towards agricultural research than public funds in the US (which includes the USDA's notoriously pro-corporate public money). This has resulted in biased research, leaving policy makers unable to make unbiased policies. It has also captured the imagination of scientists and researchers, forcing research to continue in an areas like GMOs that have been shown to reduce yields and contribute to food scarcity and environmental decline. Finally, the research done (even in public universities) are kept out of the Commons by privately-constructed, draconian intellectual property laws and patents, which are enforced by heavily funded teams of lawyers, as well as legal threats and private security companies. Once something leaves the Commons, it not given back.

Un-Common Extremes

Lawmakers have allowed human DNA to be privatized, which is surely about as 'common' as anything we share.

The atmosphere too, is being negotiated away through international cap-and-trade schemes - the commodification of the air we breathe.

As these attempts to commodify (and thus eradicate) the Commons continue, we are finding that nothing is to be spared. Indeed, while we used to fund ventures into space from the Commons, asteroid mining is now being contemplated, bankrolled by billionaires. And although we'll probably never make much of our time in space, how long will it be before even space is commodified, divided, and sold off?

But this loss of the Commons needn't be the case. This is not the only possible future for humanity. It can be reversed, and it should be.

Common Revival

Although touted as such, Austerity is not a way to balance the budget. Not only are we finding austerity is ineffective at what it claims to do, Austerity is actually an attempt to sell off the Commons as quickly as possible. It is driven by the interests of private finance, and associated with a domineering mindset of oligarchical control. It is, quite simply, elitism, paid for by us all.

Fortunately, people are beginning to fight back. Greece is currently working out how to scrap austerity, France voted in Hollande for his anti-austerity promises, and Germany's largest state just rejected Merkel's austerity. Popular grass-roots movements like Occupy and Blockupy continue to grow, exposing austerity's Commons-crippling agenda. And as awareness grows, anger grows, meaning action grows.

The tide is turning - the Commons will grow again!

Economic Life Support

"A politician and a naturalist were discussing the future of Thjórsárver. Thjórsárver is a world heritage site. The river Thjórsá flows from the glacier and runs through a dip in the highlands, creating a unique area of mountain wetlands, a sudden oasis of green in the bleak black desert of central Iceland. These wetlands are the most important nesting site in the world for the pink-footed goose. There were plans to build a dam and submerge a large part of the area to generate electricity for a new aluminium plant in Hvalfjörđur.
"The naturalist was saying how important this area was for Iceland, and for the world, and for the future of one of the world's most attractive species of geese. To which the politician countered with the 'need to ensure economic growth'. The naturalist tried to enter an objection: '...but do we absolutely need economic growth?' And with that his case was lost, and the politician smiled avuncularly. The politician was being 'realistic': his views were founded on logic and broad perspective. The naturalist was being 'unrealistic', blinded by romanticism and the narrow self-interest of his particular field.

-- Andri Snœr Magnason, Dreamland, 2006, p71.

Economic growth.

The economy in the world today is based on growth. The globalized capitalist system relies on economic growth to continue. Trade, progress, markets, industry, mining, politics, consumption, cities, food—everything today relies upon it. When economic growth slows we get a recession. When it stagnates we get a depression, "with all the desperation and hardship that these words imply". (Naomi Klein, "Capitalism vs. the Climate", The Nation, Nov 2011)

The fear of a depression is crippling to society. On hearing that word, people retreat from the things they most care about, in order to focus on the 'more important' problem. After all, who wants to be against job creation in times of unemployment? Who is for spiralling debt, whether personal or national?

We've seen the effect of this. In 2007 'being green' was in the news, 'eco' was hip, and global action was seen to be urgently needed. Celebrities attending the Academy Awards arrived in hybrids and even politicians dared to engage green issues. But that all changed. With the economic collapse of 2008, all focus was lost. The environment has barely been in the news since, except to cover the failure of Copenhagen in 2009. People aren't interested any more. The coverage of climate change in the media is barely 20% of what it was.

Instead, we are daily bombarded by financial news. The markets have taken the focus from every other issue. And it's not surprising. The markets have unprecedented power in the world, and they are in massive trouble. Their foundational ideology is being questioned as they collide with a sharp rocks of reality. And the reality is, economics based on continual growth doesn't work—the world is finite, and it won't indefinitely supply new markets to expand into.

The idea of economic growth is a metaphor, taken from the living world around us. Trees grow. People grow. Plants, insects and animals grow. They all start small, add to their size by consuming nutrients and resources found in the world around them, and hopefully, they eventually become healthy, adult living beings. But then they do something that our economy refuses to do:

Stop growing.

Once a living creature reaches adulthood, its size doesn't increase. It's growth period is over, and the majority of its life is still ahead of it. At this point, it's reached a relatively-sustainable size. If trees continue to grow past a certain point, they might receive more sunlight for a short period of time, but when the storms come, it will be these over-sized trees that crack in the wind, unable to support their own weight. It's the biggest trees that come crashing down.

Our economic system is more than a tree—it's an entire forest. Nearly everything that can be exploited for growth has been exploited. There are no more significant resources in the world that will be found to keep it growing. And those that are left—agricultural land, oceanic life, biodiversity, and a stable climate—are quickly being used up, breaking down, and reaching their limits.

The economic system has reached the point that it is being artificially kept alive. The massive bailouts of public money that have been donated to private coffers are nothing more than economic life support. They're the last steroid that we can give, the final stimulus that can be used to keep the aged cell walls from collapsing. The era of economic growth is over. It is time for this economic paradigm to pass away, and for a new economic paradigm to take its place.

So where does that leave us? Not communism—that system has already repeatedly failed, and its exploitation of the natural world was at times worse than capitalism. And not libertarianism, civilizational collapse, or anarchy—these just leave the rich and powerful free to prey on the weak.

Instead, we need a new set of policies, laws, methods of economic calculation, and governmental systems that take account of, and respect, nature. We need, as Naomi Klein argues, "an alternative worldview to rival the one at the heart of the ecological crisis—this time, embedded in interdependence rather than hyper-individualism, reciprocity rather than dominance and cooperation rather than hierarchy." "The way out is to embrace a managed transition to another economic paradigm, using all the tools of planning discussed above. Growth would be reserved for parts of the world still pulling themselves out of poverty."

This kind of change of worldview is not easy, but it's also not impossible. We live in an emergent world, a world where the present is an ongoing process, and where history is crafted by the choices we make—when combined with our visions of the future.

So what do we need to achieve this? The problem may seem insurmountable, but when broken down into parts, it starts to fit inside our collective imaginations, and so allow us to move away from the grim future promised by deregulated capitalism.

For example, we need to take the money out of politics. We need to re-regulate the markets, and make the markets work for the public good. We need more planning. We need more accountability in governments, and we need to give governments more power. We need to not only increase taxes on the rich (globally, so they have no tax-havens to run to), we also need to make it clear that those billionaires who hold the capital will be the ones who pay for many of the changes that need to be made. We'll allow them to become philanthropists.

But these changes won't just happen—quite the contrary; they'll be strongly opposed (violently at times) by many in the 1%—and those in the 99% they've convinced to do their work for them. The necessary changes require action from you. They'll need you to start writing to your local elected officials—at least twice monthly. They'll need you to switch your bank accounts (and your company's if you have the chance) away from the worst offenders—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, etc. They will require social movements like Occupy Wall St—and at times they'll need you to leave your day job to go down and join them. And if you really feel incapable of doing nothing else at the moment, at least sign up to several clicktivist sites: Avaaz, 38degrees, 350.org, change.org (but know that clicktivism is only a start—it'll never be enough).

Our future doesn't need to be the grim future of economic and planetary death promised by capitalism. Indeed, de-regulated capitalism is on its death-bed, and the obituary of business-as-usual will soon be written. It's up to you to start preparing for the economics of decline, and to start moving towards a future of interdependence and sustainability. Begin today!

Your device is temporary

Electronics are temporary. The device you're using to read this blog is a short-term passenger that has joined you for a few years (at best) on your journey through life. It will not last. It will soon die.

Look at your life. How many of the electronics in your life are less than a year old? How many of those replaced previous versions of similar electronics? And how many electronics do you own that are older than five years? Ten years? Probably not many.

I suspect your fridge might be over ten years old. And maybe your electric cooker. But other than that? You computer is almost certainly under ten years, and probably under five (an exception being my father, whose '92 Amiga is almost 20). The lightbulbs in your house will be less than ten, unless you're lucky enough to have gotten energy-saving bulbs early. Then, there's just a chance they'll be ten - but they'll be dying soon. If you have a ten-year-old TV in the house, it's probably in the attic. The TV(s) in use are flat-screen, bought in the last three years. If you're like many Torontonians, you put your old CRT out on the street, a piece of worthless junk. And your phone is probably under two years old. A four-year-old phone is almost a museum piece!

All this demonstrates the temporary nature of electronics. Humans have been around for 2 million years. Homo sapians for 200,000. Agricultural society has been around for 10,000 years, and writing has existed for around 5,000. Electricity has been generated by human-made machines for 150 years. Assuming environmental degradation doesn't wipe out humanity in the next few centuries, humanity could well survive for many more years - maybe millions, possibly hundreds of millions. But how long will our electronics last?

Most of our modern-day electronic gadgets require a multitude of rare elements. Although not all that rare, they are still limited. Natural reserves will run out. But when? According to the Guardian, global demand is around 200,000 tonnes/year, and we have 100 million tonnes economically viable and accessible on the planet. That would mean we have 500 years of supply left (if we foolishly assume demand is steady). I've been unable to determine how much of this is economically viable to extract.

However, things don't stop when the total supply is spent. Some things become impossible when the first few critical elements becomes unavailable. That could be by the end of the decade, as Hafnium, Indium and Gallium run out. Furthermore, things will run into problems when China stops exporting. It's likely to do so in 2012, and it currently controls 97% of the worlds rare earth mining (a lot comes from Mongolia - sometimes called Minegolia!). We could see a major price hike in electronics in the next couple of years.

Aside from disappointing human greed, this may not be a bad thing. It will hopefully encourage people to look for longer-lasting electronics, and will encourage increased recycling of electronics. E-waste sites are responsible for polluting large areas of land, and expose the poorest humans to life-destroying toxins. We must press our officials for recycling and waste regulations that take the health of people and the environment into account. Once some of the larger deposits of rare earths are stripped, it is likely to become more economically viable (not to mention more efficient) to create an almost-closed recycling loop. However, this will require laws that force products to be made with recycling in mind. Not impossible, but certainly something that will require widespread public support.

But the biggest problem involved in the temporary nature of electronics is the mining that supports their existence. Mining today is probably the best example of a closed and uncaring mentality that rips apart some of the most valuable parts of the planet. To 'mine' is to 'use up' the planet. Earth is seen to be disposable. The local people, a nuisance. Ecosystems, inconvenient.

Mines are nearly all operated by large multinational companies. Many of these corporations have proven track records of environmental and human-rights abuses. Rio Tinto, DeBeers and AngloGold (to name a few) have all be nominated as the most evil corporations in the world. They repeatedly strip areas of their resources, and in doing so they destroy the local environment, dig up ancient sacred sites, wipe of local peoples and native culture, support and conduct genocide, walk over worker's rights, practice slavery (including child slavery), heavily contribute to climate emissions, poison rivers, steal water, cause species to become extinct, finance violent factions, bribe officials, encourage political instability, and murder activists who try to oppose them. I'd link them all, but you can google each of them pretty easily.

Mining is a major problem in the world today. It is barely regulated, and where it is, the regulations are frequently ignored. It's a problem that isn't going away. You should expect to see the abuses of the mining corporations for the rest of your life. You should look into strategies to stop them. You should get involved whenever you can to stop these corporations from conducting mining, both locally and abroad.

Of course, an important way to reduce the abuses of mining will be to reduce the need for it. The next time you're thinking about buying an electronic product, reconsider. Do you need it? Will it last? Is it worth it? Because every electronic product you buy is almost certainly, in some way, tied to many of the abuses mentioned above. Can you really justify the purchase? And if you can, look for electronics that will last. Look into their production. Look into the supply-chain that brought them in front of you. Be informed, and purchase as ethically as you can.

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Hopefully it won't be long before we have fair trade electronics.