The International Day of Peace (“Peace Day”) provides an opportunity for individuals, organizations and nations to create practical acts of peace on a shared date. It was established by a United Nations resolution in 1981 to coincide with the opening of the General Assembly. The first Peace Day was celebrated in September 1982.

In 2002 the General Assembly officially declared September 21 as the permanent date for the International Day of Peace.

By creating the International Day of Peace, the UN devoted itself to worldwide peace and encouraged all of mankind to work in cooperation for this goal. During the discussion of the U.N. Resolution that established the International Day of Peace, it was suggested that:

“Peace Day should be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples…This day will serve as a reminder to all peoples that our organization, with all its limitations, is a living instrument in the service of peace and should serve all of us here within the organization as a constantly pealing bell reminding us that our permanent commitment, above all interests or differences of any kind, is to peace.”

Since its inception, Peace Day has marked our personal and planetary progress toward peace. It has grown to include millions of people in all parts of the world, and each year events are organized to commemorate and celebrate this day. Events range in scale from private gatherings to public concerts and forums where hundreds of thousands of people participate.

Anyone, anywhere can celebrate Peace Day. It can be as simple as lighting a candle at noon, or just sitting in silent meditation. Or it can involve getting your co-workers, organization, community or government engaged in a large event. The impact if millions of people in all parts of the world, coming together for one day of peace, is immense.

International Day of Peace is also a Day of Ceasefire – personal or political. Take this opportunity to make peace in your own relationships as well as impact the larger conflicts of our time. Imagine what a whole Day of Ceasefire would mean to humankind.

Map: http://bit.ly/agG0s8

To cover this story, email amitchell@studentenergy.org

Recently, I have heard a few people voice the opinion that protecting the environment is important, but that right now the economy should take precedence. On one hand, this opinion is an argument of values, of one version of prosperity over another. On the other hand, it appears to involve an assumption that investing in the natural environment does not contribute to economic growth or even that it hinders it. However, the economy represents the material wealth of a country or the management of that country’s resources. Perhaps the most important kind of resource is natural resources, for it is from these that every item of economic value is made. Natural resources, or the environment, are at the core of a nation’s wealth and therefore essential to any economy. Furthermore, they are essential for our prosperity as they provide our basic needs. The economy and the environment are not as opposed as they may seem.

How then, might it appear that efforts to conserve these essential basic resources are detrimental to human wealth? Economic growth is most often measured by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The GDP is increased by consumer and government spending, investment by businesses, and the export of goods. Imports, on the other hand, decrease the GDP. While the GDP may be a useful indicator of economic activity, it gives an incomplete picture. The GDP does not specify whether the goods or services consumers and the government are buying are positive or negative for the nation; it only specifies that money is changing hands. For example, in the event of a disaster such as an earthquake or flood, the GDP will actually increase as the government throws money into disaster relief. A high GDP is supposed to indicate a good economy. However, no one would say that the disaster had caused the afflicted region had become more wealthy. Many resources are lost due to damage or consumed in the post-disaster response. People lose their farms, infrastructure and jobs, and therefore more material wealth is lost as the affected people are unable to go to work to produce their goods. The quality of life is poor and yet, because money is changing hands, the GDP is high. Perhaps the first mistake in estimating the cost of environmental protection is the use of an economic measurement that does not consider the quantity and quality of resources available.

The calculation for the GDP does not take natural resources, or natural capital, into account. However, just as capital is important to any business, natural capital is important for a country. Without the natural resources that provide for our basic needs, we would be in a precarious position. We’d be entirely dependent on other countries for essentials such as food and shelter. But it is not enough to think of resources only on a national scale. We must also consider what would happen if every country dismissed its environmental problems in favour of boosting the GDP. The world’s supply of natural resources is limited. If we were to lose them, we would lose the ability to survive. Another wonderful thing about natural capital is that, like money sitting in a savings account, it grows if you let it be for a while. If not over-harvested, a run of salmon will increase in numbers to a population that can sustain more people. A new forest, if given time and room to grow, will mature and expand, providing not only more raw materials for products but also trees to provide essential services such as oxygen production and nitrogen cycling in the soil, and a habitat for other wildlife.

Investing in the environment does not have to come at the cost of our economy. It is, in fact, essential to the economy. It simply is not recognized as such by the current measurement. Although resources not currently being used do not contribute to the GDP, our economic well-being depends on them. Smart economics should mean an effective allocation of resources, not just an increase in spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5YVXnnfS28

Negotiating the needs and interests of energy stakeholders is difficult business, especially in a world where resources are in high demand and the politics of governments and corporations tend to get in the way of the needs of the people. From June 9 to 11, 2011 on UBC’s Vancouver campus, 400 student leaders with come from around the world to have a conversation.

It’s called the International Student Energy Summit.
So what could you do in 3 days?
At ISES 2011, it looks as if delegates can do a lot, from listening to Nobel Prize winning Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Dr Rajendra Pachauri, to watching a live debate on the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

The theme of ISES 2011 is “The Evolving Energy Ecosystem” which as ISES Chair explains: “Is a critical reflection on how the roles and responsibilities of different energy stakeholders are shifting.” By encouraging students to become actively involved in global energy issues they can have a tangible impact on our collective energy future, making ISES an important 3 days.

ISES has 3 main pillars: Markets and Regulation, Global Energy Dynamics, and Technology and Innovation. The first inaugural ISES began in 2009 at the University of Calgary campus featuring Vicente Fox, past president of Mexico, Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation of Economic Trends. ISES a global forum that will bring together 400 international, multidisciplinary postsecondary students in undergraduate and graduate studies to discuss their role in the transition to a sustainable energy future. The event is being officially hosted and sponsored by the UBC Sustainability Initiative.

The corporate and academic communities, as well as the provincial government, are all rallying to support the event. BC Hydro, Terasen Gas, the British Columbia Institute of Technology and the Province of BC have all confirmed as sponsors. The event is also backed by an advisory committee that boasts Vice-Presidents, Managing Directors, and CEOs from such globally-recognized outfits as Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital, Nexen and the GLOBE Foundation. Advisory Board Chair and Past CEO of BC Hydro, Bob Elton states: “When we shape our energy future we shape the world. ISES is an important event because young people have the largest stake in that future, and the sooner they are equipped to help build it, the better for all of us. The Advisory Board is inspired by the efforts that the student team is putting into ISES 2011, and look forward to an exciting and important dialogue in June.

Given Vancouver’s developing reputation as a hub for clean energy research and investment, ISES 2011 will bring a holistic view of what a sustainable community can look like. The event is also aligned with the Province of BC’s goals in the area of climate change, with renewable energy being a cornerstone of the plan for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and generating economic activity internationally. This backdrop of Vancouver and the location of UBC, recently tied for number one in Canada on the College Sustainability Report, will add to the sense of action and empowerment that ISES looks to inspire.

Check it out and register today: www.studentenergy.org

ISES 2011 Promo from VoVo Productions on Vimeo.

Credit: Brent Granby

Red Tents: Campaign for a National Housing Strategy

by Tamara Mackay-Temesy
Homelessness in Canada costs about $2 billion every year, based on health care, social service and criminal justice costs. If that seems high, you may be surprised to learn that this is actually a low estimate; $6 billion a year is more accurate, based on a 2009 study which estimates 300 000 homeless persons at a cost of $20 000 each. 1 It is $10 000 cheaper per person to provide appropriate housing and social services rather than leave them on the street. The financial reasons for addressing Canada’s homelessness problem alone make it worthwhile, but it is also a serious human rights issue.
Since 2007, the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has urged Canada to “adopt a comprehensive and coordinated national housing policy based on indivisibility of human rights and the protection of the most vulnerable.” 2 While little has been done at a federal level, on December 9th, 2009, the BC Court of Appeal upheld a BC Supreme Court ruling that extended Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Person). The Victoria (City) v. Adams case established the constitutional right of persons to erect temporary overnight shelters to “protect themselves from the elements and sleep on public property free from harassment by police, municipal officials and security guards.” 3 However, this does not establish a positive obligation for the Government of Canada to provide housing. The Red Tent Campaign seeks to change this by pressuring the federal government to create a national housing strategy.

The Red Tent Campaign, spearheaded by Vancouver’s Pivot Legal Society and over twenty partners, is a national campaign to guarantee adequate, accessible, affordable and secure housing for all persons living in Canada. The campaign’s bright red tents are distributed primarily to homeless people, and serve to increase visibility of the housing crisis in Canada.
The Red Tent campaign has so far held two Days of Action, where over 100 red tents were brought to Parliament Hill in Ottawa to raise awareness of homelessness and housing issues in Canada. The Parties were asked if they supported (1) the adoption of a fully-funded national housing strategy in cooperation with provinces, (2) the maintenance of existing federal subsidies for social housing units, in order to ensure accessibility for low-income households and (3) continued federal investment in housing. While the Conservative party declined to comment, the very supportive responses of the NDP, Green and Liberal Parties can be read here. The current goal is to pass Bill C-304, a private member’s bill introduced in 2009 by Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East. 4 The Bill would allow Canada to create an effective national housing strategy to end homelessness, and thus ensure the human rights of over 300 000 persons are met. Bill C-304 is currently in its second reading in parliament, and is supported by the NDP, Liberals and Greens.
The most recent developments are local, as the City of Vancouver proposed amendments to Section 71 of a by-law concerning “Structures for Public Expression on City Streets” with only two days notice to the public. 5 As Pivot lawyer Scott Bernstein has noted, this amendment fails to address the Victoria (City) v. Adams decision in the B.C. Court of Appeal. 6 The City of Vancouver seeks to differentiate between erecting shelter in a park, which is allowed in Victoria, from a shelter in a street or sidewalk, including out of the way areas. 7 These amendments are thus clearly leaning towards an unconstitutional bylaw that would violate human rights, as established in Victoria v. Adams through the Charter, and supported by the UN. The Red Tent campaign is trying to work with the City of Vancouver to create acceptable, effective legislation to properly address Vancouver’s housing problem, which is the most desperate in the country and has asked the City for clarification on the amendments and offered legal suggestions.
For more information or to find out how you can get involved, please contact housingnow@redtents.org

1 "Homelessness - Causes and Effects, Volume 3: The Costs of Homelessness in British Columbia. Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security," Eberle, Margaret et al., Government of British Columbia, 2001. www.housing.gov.bc.ca/housing/docs/Vol3.pdf
National Housing and Homeless Network, 2007. www.cmha.ca/citizens/housingENG.pdf
2 "In From The Margins: A Call To Action On Poverty, Housing, and Homelessness," The Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology: Report of the Subcommittee on Cities (December 2009). www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/citi-e/subsite-dec09-e/reports-e.htm
3 “Promotion And Protection Of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social And Cultural Rights, Including The Right To Development : Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, Miloon Kothari” MISSION TO CANADA* (9 to 22 October 2007). Section X (90) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/A.HRC.10.7.Add.3.pdf
4 “Housing is a Right.” Red Tents. http://www.redtents.org/learn/housing-is-a-right
5 “Private Member’s Bill.” 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. January 26, 2009 - December 30, 2009. http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?billId=3630084&Language=E&Mode=1
6 “Structures for Public Expression on City Streets.” Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20110407/documents/penv1StructuresforPublicExpressiononCityStreets.pdf
“City rushes in by-law amendments that threaten expression and homeless.” Red Cedar Law Blog. http://redcedarlaw.com/2011/04/07/city-by-laws/
7 Ibid.

Vote Mob Coordinators

Today’s event saw approximately 250 students take part in the VoteMob.
They were energetic, engaged, and proud Canadians who came out to send a message to young Canadians and the political parties that youth will show up this time. Whether the VoteMobs will translate into greater numbers at the polls is yet to be seen, but the outlook looks better and better.

Thanks to everyone who participated and made the VOTEMOB a success!

University of Guelph Vote Mob. Credit: Yvonne Su

No disrespect to your grandmothers and grandfathers (they do their civic duty every few years), but this election, the narrative isn’t about them. It’s 2011 and the election that started with the typical back and forth political spin between major parties and Elizabeth May shouting from the sidelines has taken a new direction. Suddenly, it’s energetic, engaged, and including a whole demographic of voters of whom in recent elections have usually been withdrawn from the political process. While the Tories claimed this was an election that no one wanted, it’s being turned on its head by the growing movement of “Vote Mobs” across the country. At 35 universities and counting, hundreds of youth are taking to their campuses and producing videos to share with the rest of their country. The message is simple: Youth are voting.

Days into the campaign, youth-related stories began to take hold in the media. From the student who was refused entry into a Harper rally because of her Facebook profile, the surprise welcome by University of Guelph students at Harper and Ignatieff campaign events, and the numerous Vote Mobs being planned through social media, students have started to take over the direction of the campaign. Groups like LeadNow, a new organization run by Canadians of all ages, have facilitated these vote mobs, many of which were inspired by Rick Mercer’s Rant. Mercer stated: “If you’re between the ages of 18 and 24, and you want to scare the hell out of the people who run the country, do the unexpected, take 20 minutes out of your day and do what young people the world over are dying to do, Vote!”

It now looks as if young Canadians are going to show up this time. This election seems to be everywhere, and especially dominating social media – which accounts for growing youth participation. After all, if you want to get young people involved you have to go where they are.

Knowing that youth are far more likely to vote Liberal, NDP, or Green, Canadian youth might effectively be accomplishing what Mercer suggested. “Scare (ing) the hell out of the people who run this country.” Federal Conservative candidate John Baird’s recent comment about “flash” and “mobs” being “disconcerting” may therefore be appropriate. No one really knows what the vote mob movement will result in this election. Consider this: most youth aren’t registered to vote, don’t have a landline to be tracked by elections Canada, and haven’t given their cell phone number to a political party in order to be targeted through that medium. People can guess whatever they would like about how effective the youth vote will be in changing this election, but the reality is that no one can really know until all ballots are cast. Considering so little attention has been paid to the demographic in the past, parties may now have to scramble to try and sway what could potentially be large numbers of available votes that they haven’t garnered before.

Such ambiguity has to leave politicians apprehensive about how to now grasp the “youth vote”. This, however, is easier said than done because not only is it unclear how many of the 3 million youth in Canada will cast a ballot this election, but also because this demographic doesn’t have just one priority they are allocating their vote towards. The youth vote won’t be captured by tossing out a bone like reduced tuition. Although such policy is relevant and important to youth, it isn’t good enough. Youth care about a variety of issues. A glance at the Vote Mob videos from across the country show that issues of environmental protection, women’s rights, aboriginal rights, income inequality, climate change, Canada’s international reputation, and education are all issues that youth want addressed. That being said, in an election that has focussed on few of those issues, the parties have much catching up to do to capture the support of a newly engaged, informed, and diverse generation. As a first time voter, my advice to each party would be to watch this movement carefully. If youth actually show up this time, this election could leave everyone surprised – without anyone having seen it coming.

Come out to the UBC VOTE MOB I’m co-organizing:
April 20th, at UBC. 12-2pm. Visit: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=117463898334533 for more information; Contact: ubcvotemob AT gmail.com

Read the article on The Commonsense Canadian
Read the Article on Abbotsford Today

Organizer Aaina Grover has teamed up with Abbotsford Youth to promote the “Dialogue on Demcracy”
Here is what she has to say about the project:
This dialogue is the first of a series of dialogues where we will work to foster discussion, dialogue and debate. In light of the upcoming election we thought it would be fitting to call in our candidates and talk about democracy around the world. Furthermore, one of the most popular topics among our youth focus group, which we conducted a month ago, was the curiosity about the diruption in the Middle East. Therefore we decided this dialogue would be about democracy and the fight for democracy around the world. At this event, we want to ask our candidates about the institution of democracy, the situation of democracy around the world, and the situation of our own Canadian democratic system. Hopefully we can get something good out of them. In essense, my friend Gurbir and I began this dialogue because we were fed up with youth apathy. We wanted to give the youth an outlet to channel their contribution, politicaly and socially. Hopefully this New Agora” takes off in Abbotsford, and if nothing inspires youth to be interested in their ever changing world. And as our world globalizes and gets smaller every year, all I can hope for is that the coming Canadian generation meets the challenge.

Way to go Aaina!  Click here for more details

From two suburban cities, differing stories in relation to public transit.
From Coquitlam, despite talk about achieving a total of 30% of trips taken on modalities other than the personal vehicle, a necessity for transit cuts emerges.

But then from rapidly expanding Abbotsford, without any such grandiose plans (if 30% really is “grandiose”) comes a plan to increase public transit service by an overall 10% as of July, with 11 700 additional service hours at an annual cost of nearly half a million dollars:

Which of these, if any, is the intelligent move? Coquitlam and Abbotsford are actually almost identical in population size according to Wikipedia, though according to the same source, Abbotsford has a density less than half that of Coquitlam. That number is misleading however, as Abbotsford has a significant percentage of its area locked inside the Agricultural Land Reserve – three quarters, in fact, meaning it has a higher effective density than the city of Coquitlam.

As is generally well understood, density is the forerunner of cost-effective public transit, so compared to Coquitlam, Abbotsford well-positioned from a density perspective to have effective public transit. Many more factors affect the argument for providing public transit or not, however. For one, the people have to be willing to use public transit, and on this count, Abbotsford’s people may lag a little bit. There is definitely a perception of public transit as the “poor man’s” transportation. That has to change.

For another, the public transit has to connect different types of land use. It has to get people from their homes to their workplaces to their shopping and back – and considering that again according to Wikipedia, 62% of Abbotsford’s workforce stays within City limits to travel to work, Abbotsford seems well-suited for high levels of ridership if the service develops. Other important factors include the aesthetic attractiveness of the service, its reliability, and its affordability. I can’t say how Coquitlam fares on these fronts, but I know that in Abbotsford, the fleet has been transitioned to a modern, efficient, smart-looking one, and is definitely much more affordable than driving a personal vehicle – with the large caveat that it can only get you to a select number of locations at a select number of times. That last is major deterrent to anybody wanting to rely solely on public transit. You often just can’t do it, and so you’re forced to have car insurance and car payments as well as using public transit, and now that you have a car insured, almost all the incentive to ever use public transit is simply gone.

READ THE REST HERE