Reflecting on The Communicator

On Wednesday, I finished pulling together the final edition of The Communicator. As I sent it off to the printers, I felt surprising nostalgic, but also very proud. I am considering my Take Action project as a continuation of the project that I started in September 2012 as the editor of The Communicator. My goal as editor of the paper has always been to provoke thought and dialogue on campus, just as was the goal of my Take Action project.

As the editor of The Communicator, I have been privileged enough to work with an incredible team made up of my peers. It has been such an honour to work with them on creating pieces that they are passionate about, and to encourage them to explore ideas that they may not have previously considered. These past two years have not always been easy, but fantastic learning experiences have come out of the difficulties. For example, last year we published an anonymous article that took the Palestinian perspective while writing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The backlash of this article showed me how powerful journalism can be, as it provoked an intense discussion surrounding the issue of campus. This experience also taught me the responsibility of an editor to stand by their peers, but to admit when a mistake has been made and to handle the issue in a respectful manner. Finally, The Communicator has have course also provided me with an outlet to write and to share my ideas about ideas that I am passionate about.

As I head to university next year to study journalism, I will remember fondly my time as the editor of The Communicator. It has provided me with a great foundation for my studies, and for what I hope will be a successful future in journalism.

Reflecting on my article

The original goal of my Take Action project was to write an article that would convince people that biofuels are a viable alternative to petroleum fuels, and that instead of developing more petroleum infrastructure such as pipelines, we should invest in biofuel development and infrastructure. While I have not completely given up on biofuels, my original intention has shifted considerably. The article ended up being one which was meant to provoke critical thinking and dialogue surrounding how we think about energy. We do not need to continue following the same pattern of unsustainable use and consumption, and instead we should be placing pressure on those in power to lead by example and to do more to promote and develop a sustainable future.

This project was such an incredible learning experience for me as someone who is interested in environmental causes and sustainability, and as an aspiring journalist. I learned that energy issues are so much more complex than many people think, and that it will take a combined effort of resources and idea to curb our petroleum addiction. However, after completing this project I am more certain than ever that there are viable alternatives out there. We do not need to sit idly by while our leaders continue to make unsustainable decisions by promoting unsustainable developments. Just as Why We Fight detailed the military-industrial complex, I believe that in Canada (and most of the world) we are victims of a petroleum-industrial complex. Although it is widely known that alternatives exist, leaders of governments and corporations are not willing to take the most important steps towards sustainability because, at least initially, it would not be economically profitable. However, in the long run, sustainability is of course both economically and environmentally profitable.

As an aspiring journalist, this project taught me so much about the processes and considerations that must be taken when constructing an article such as this one. I gained valuable experience by interviewing three people for this project, and by communicating with an editor at the Winnipeg Free Press (even if that didn't pan out). While writing the article, I took careful consideration to represent the words of the people who I had interviewed effectively and truthfully, so as to create a piece that had both meaning and integrity. I am proud of this piece, and I am confident that it could effectively "take action" by encouraging readers to consider this important topic in a way that they may not have previously.

Interview with Alan Diduck

Today I interviewed Alan Diduck, a professor in the Environmental Studies Department at the University of Winnipeg. I prepared questions to ask him that would specifically fill any holes that are missing in my article. He was very helpful, and discussed the issues that he sees as most affecting Canadians today, the role of public institutions such as universities when it comes to supporting sustainability, and the difficulties of working sustainably within an institution.

One of the most helpful things that Mr Diduck had to say was on the topic of the energy industry today. He described some of the main flaws as being that energy regulation processes “do not take into account alternatives to the projects, and alternatives in the ways the projects should be implemented.” This fits perfectly within my article, as I am proposing that there may be viable alternatives to petroleum energy, but that the issue is that we are not taking into account and acknowledging these alternatives as actual possibilities.  

The final question that I asked Mr Diduck was a bit touchy, and I assured him that he was not obligated to respond. I have shifted the focus near the end of my article to discuss Dr Lloyd Axworthy's former position on the Board of Directors of HudBay minerals, Phil Fontaine's current employment with TransCanada, and Enbridge's sponsorship of U of W programs as recently as September 2013. I asked Mr Diduck has reconciled this industry presence with creating a sustainable campus, and he replied by saying: "Well, I don't think that I have reconciled it." He went on to explain that it is a challenge to balance growth and sustainability on campus, finishing off by saying: "growth for the sake of growth is not a good thing." 

Finding a local link

Now that I have decided to publish my article in The Communicator, I have been trying to find a "local link," or something present and locally pertinent that will help connect readers to the issue. A quick Google search of "university of winnipeg sustainability" set me on a promising path. At the beginning of this February, the University of Winnipeg launched their newest sustainability initiative. There are numerous "modules" of this initiative that will aim to reduce the university campus's environmental impact. These modules range from energy, to transportation, to waste. I could discuss this initiative as a current example of community leaders looking ahead towards progressive sustainability, rather than remaining stagnant and continuing to support pipelines and petroleum production.

This then got me thinking about a fact that I heard in an article a couple of months ago: Lloyd Axworthy, the president and vice-chancellor of the U of W used to sit on the Board of Directors of Hudbay Minerals. A quick Google search of Hudbay shows that this company has consistently been rated as one of the top industry polluters in North America. Another example of industry infiltrating our community: Phil Fontaine, the Chair of the U of W's Indigenous Advisory Circle is currently working for TransCanada, which owns the Keystone XL pipeline. Another: until September 2013, Enbridge was sponsoring a campus program that gave inner city youth a chance to spend a day at the university.

I think that it may be interesting to bring up these examples as factors that may restrict our progression towards sustainable energy. One of the things that kept coming up in my interviews with both Umesh Ramachandran and Matthew McCandless was that the public, the politicians, and the industry must be on board if we wish to make sustainable energy a viable possibility. Having Axworthy and Fontaine, two people who are or have been involved with the industry and who are both major players on the political stage, occupy such important positions at the U of W could seriously hinder our community's progression towards sustainability. And if this is happening at the U of W then it must be happening in many other institutions. Just an idea...

Unfortunately I will not be able to interview Lloyd Axworthy for my article as he left for Ukraine earlier this week. However, I will hopefully be interviewing the Director of the U of W's Sustainability Office on Monday.

Shifting my action plan

I have recently come to terms with the fact that it is unrealistic to believe that my piece will be published in the Winnipeg Free Press, especially in such a short time frame. The reason for this is largely due to the fact that there is nothing new that I discuss in my piece. Most of it is a collection of already known information, and I feel that I am not bringing anything new to the discussion surrounding biofuels and the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

That being said, I think that my piece can still "take action" if I publish it in The Communicator. Many high school students perhaps do not know the pressing nature of the Northern Gateway issue (a federal decision will be made in 3 months!), and perhaps do not understand the severity of our petroleum addiction. The proposal of biofuels as an alternative (or even the fact that there are indeed sustainable alternatives) may be a new concept for some readers as well.

Additionally, our Take Action Project was meant to either be a new project or a continuation of an ongoing project. I consider my work with The Communicator to be a project where I have been taking action in my community for the past two years. I am extremely proud of the work that has been accomplished at The Communicator to provoke thought-provoking dialogue about important issues on campus, and will be treating the piece that I am writing about biofuels and pipelines as a way to "go out with a bang" before my graduation at the end of April.

Steering a solution

Resolving problems can often feel like steering an unwieldy ship through a storm of apathy an opposition. I have been wondering recently whether or not biofuels are the "right" solution to our petroleum addiction. It is so difficult to imagine a world without oil; we seem to be so far gone down the road of petroleum that turning back and reverting to a sustainable alternative such as biofuels seems as though it would take an unsustainable amount of time and energy. However, the fact remains that we must curb our petroleum use somehow.

Perhaps the solution to this issue does not lie in one single idea. Biofuels may be able to account for one portion of our future energy supply, but perhaps another solution lies in solar power, while yet another lies wind. Much of the criticism surrounding these latter two options lies on the idea that they are unpredictable, and thus inefficient. However, a recent image that I saw shared on social media proposes that this may simply be an excused that many North Americans may use to cop-out of the solar power debate.

Although Germany experiences much less sunlight than the United States, Germany is the world's leading solar energy producer; they have more solar panels than the rest of the world combined, and "recently met 50% of their energy needs with solar alone."

I know - this does not have to do with pipelines or biofuels! But all the same, it serves as a reminder that there are other, equally viable energy solutions out there.

(But oh goodness... what about all the energy used to produce solar panels, and the waste that they create when they stop working? No solution is flawless! But neither is our current petroleum usage.)

Saskatchewan passes motion to support Northern Gateway

Earlier this month, the Saskatchewan legislature passed a motion which supports the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline. An article about this event can be read here.

This is a bit of an unusual motion as the construction of the Enbridge pipeline will not actually travel through Saskatchewan, nor will it transport Saskatchewan oil. All the same, premier Brad Wall claims that the pipeline will "clear up the bottleneck" when it comes to oil transport to the west coast, thus positively affecting the Saskatchewan economy. Wall also makes the common argument that transporting oil by pipeline is much safer than transporting by rail.

The publication of this article positively benefits my Take Action project in two ways:

1. It reinforces the pressing nature of this issue. Different political entities are either supporting or denouncing the Northern Gateway project as the June deadline for the approval of the project draws nearer.

2. It once again reinforces the pipeline or rail dialogue. Nowhere in the article, or in the dialogue of premier Brad Wall is there a discussion about whether limiting our usage of oil and searching for renewable energy alternatives may be a better solution to our oil woes than continuing to construct pipelines.