Recently a great change happened in Canada! We got rid of the worst prime minister in Canadian history! This dramatic change gave people fresh hope.

Unfortunately, because the last was one so bad, many people were in Stockholm Syndrome-like fashion, glassy-eyed and giddy. Any criticism from those who did not vote for Trudeau was attacked with derision and vitriol.

Their argument was: “The last one was so bad, you should be happy”!

Really? Is this sound logic? No, of course not.

Part of being human is a natural primordial need to feel good. This relatively healthy need drives us to seek food, shelter and love. Activists are also humans with those same needs.

We want to feel like we are actually accomplishing something and thus ‘getting somewhere/ ‘moving forward’.

This and other needs like being seen, being respected appreciated and valued, affects our thinking words and actions.

A classic example is the use, or rather, the overuse of the word “Sustainable”. It is almost never being used correctly. Worse yet… ‘Ten years after the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, most of the global environmental challenges had clearly not been adequately addressed. In several ways, these challenges had grown.

The Brundtland Commission officially dissolved in December 1987 after releasing Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, in October 1987, a document which coined, and defined the meaning of the term “Sustainable Development”.’

Virtually no “development” is “sustainable” if we apply the true scientific definition verses the snake oil definition. In fact what we are truly talking about is being Less Unsustainable!

So now Canada has a prime minister that is not as ‘bad’. He is, shall we say, the ‘lesser of evils’?

In simple terms, burning nonrenewable resources, that in fact were, largely, harvested and mined “unsustainably”, transported how many times unsustainably; then thrown ‘away’ and picked up in trucks made of steel, aluminum, copper, rare-earth metals, rubber and plastic, to be transported unsustainably, using unsustainable fuels driven on unsustainable roads to an unsustainable facility made of concrete, steel and numerous other unsustainable products.

Then to be ‘incinerated’. Is this not madness?

Is this not the epitome of feel-good nonsense?

That burning versus burying is the “lesser of evils”? And, if it is, is it not still evil?

Dear colleagues. I beseech you.

We must not allow our need to feel good as individuals or as a group, to cloud our judgement in our thoughts, words and actions.

Anything less than a redesign of our system is unacceptable.

Anything less reminds me of open coffin funerals where the dead person is surrounded by nice shiny satin, wearing new clothes, and their face is slathered with makeup so they look healthy and peaceful.

Burning as an ‘alternative’ is greenwashing of the highest order.

Its the cremation of evidence, of our materialistic, consumeristic, cancerous, parasitic lifestyle.

Back-patting anyone or any organization that furthers the smoke and mirrors illusion of green washing is a disservice to all of us who are working for real change, an ultimate insult to Gaia and every living thing.

Please, let us resolve today, that as individuals, and in our requisite groups, that we will stand for no less than honest, scientifically based change that is far less unsustainable!