Paying with Vancouver Currency

By Frédéric Van Caenegem

The Dunbar Dollar. The Kitsilano Rouble. The Riverview Lira. The Cambie Pound. No, you’re not hallucinating. Vancouver may one day include a number of different currencies in circulation within the city.

Citizens from the Village Vancouver Transition Town initiative are hard at work preparing for the Dunbar Dollar’s 2011 launch. Based on successful projects initiated on Vancouver Island, the Dunbar Dollar and other community currencies are envisaged to be an alternative that one day would serve the community, its businesses and its people. But let’s take a few steps back and see what money is.

The Heavy on Money

Exchanging goods for other goods is not always practical or useful; direct barter requires the notion that “I have something you want and you have something I want,” but the timing of those wants need to coincide. Recognizing this problem, the early civilizations of Mesopotamia came up with a way to facilitate the exchange of goods or services: money.

Almost any object can work as a currency; the most important thing is that everyone in a community recognizes the object as money and treats it as such. The first form of money was barley and not the paper and coin variants that we are familiar with today.

At different times and in different contexts, objects used as money varied from gold and silver specie to spices and other goods of value. But it was bank notes that altered peoples’ concept of money. To accept a piece of paper in exchange for a good or a service might be practical, but it hasn’t always enjoyed universal acceptance.
Guaranteed by governments, money – or rather the ability to issue money – has always been a symbol of the power of the state. Mater Amschel Rothschild once said, “give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Community Currencies

There are many communities throughout the world with their own local currencies, including right here in British Columbia. Salt Spring Island has used a local currency since 2001. Often, these currencies are backed by national reserves to bolster its stability.

The Comox Valley and, more recently the Kootenays, are other examples. The Comox Valley Community Way creates an informal partnership between local businesses, community organisations and the people of the region.

Businesses donate community currency to the community group of their choice. Community groups then spend this currency at participating local businesses, or exchange it for Canadian dollars. Businesses can then use the currency at other local merchants to source goods and services form the community, and more.

This results in a continual, circular flow of the currency throughout the community; independent of the larger national or global macroeconomic fortunes.

Benefits of Local Currencies

Local currencies tend to have better circulation than traditional money, and a higher local multiplier effect, which helps facilitate local exchanges that match local resources with local needs – all while building a sense of community. In this way, local currencies contribute to greater economic resilience.

Local currencies can certainly become an important part of the way in which communities around the world continue to thrive. Establishing a local community currency in an urban context is surely a significant challenge, but Village Vancouver is prepared to take this challenge, just as it has taken urban farming and other community resiliency projects before.

Visit www.dunbardollar.com for more information on the Dunbar Dollar community currency project.

Rex is quick to tell that this is the position of Pauline Marois, Gilles Duceppe and Jacques Parizeau.  Somehow he forgot to mention that this is also the position of Jean Charest, and of the late Robert Bourassa and Pierre-Elliot Trudeau!  I don’t hear anyone saying these were “soft” on national unity!

When regarding Québec sovereignty, one can oppose it by two different ways: being tough with sovereignist or being kind to them.  Most federalist have tried to first method and ultimately failed at fixing the constitutional issue, Layton is trying another method.  Only History will tell if it works.

Rex’s original post is available here:
http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2011/06/02/thenational-rexmurphy-060211.html

Frédéric.

I do not understand why many seem to be surprised by the current situation.  It was obvious even a year ago.  The whole process turns out to be a bit faster than anticipated, but overall, I am not surprised.  I would like to add to my previous prediction that Jane Sterk will be the leader of the Greens in the next election.

Frédéric.

The problem with these long lists of good acts is that it often confuses people and gives false impression of satisfaction towards environmental issues.  “I help the planet because I recycle plastic bottles”.  However, not buying plastic bottles in the first place is much more useful!

If you want to save the planet, the first step is to understand the impacts of what you do.  A good reference is the following website: http://www.myfootprint.org/.  It will calculate your carbon footprint and give an indication of what your lifestyle has on the world ecosystem.  The really interesting thing with the carbon footprint indicator is that it does not take all acts as being equal.  It will (as much as scientific knowledge enables it) calculate your carbon footprint.  I did mine.  It’s decent and lower than the North American average, however my lifestyle is still over ecological balance of a sustainable planet.

For fun, I crunched the numbers and came with a simple conclusion.  To “save the planet”, all you need to do are two of those three things (and be moderate with the other one):

- Be a vegetarian
- Don’t drive a car
- Don’t buy stuff

Of course, such an impressive (and over-simplistic) list requires some explanations.

Be a vegetarian

This is where I completely fail for the record.  The idea behind the “Be a vegetarian” motto is not so much to be a vegetarian but to verify what you eat (which by the way, is probably good for your health).  Buy locally produced fresh food (preferably organic; but local inorganic is definitively better than made-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet-organic-food).  Producing meat is more energy-intensive than producing vegetables, this is why vegetarians are much kinder to the planet than carnivores.  But there is nothing wrong with eating fresh locally-made meat product from time to time.  And, as mentioned before, what’s good for the planet is also good for your health.

Don’t drive a car

This should actually be “don’t drive a car and don’t take a plane either”.  Transportation uses are extremely energy-intensive so the way we choose to moves ourselves has significant impacts.  Obviously, walking and cycling are much better for the planet than taking your car everywhere and (again) much better for your health.  Funny how things that are better for the planet seems to be better for our health too!!!

And the answer is really do not drive a car.  Hybrid or electric vehicle have less impact on the environment then a SUV.  But manufacturing, shipping and disposing a vehicle are very polluting activities.  Not to mention that one of the largest environmental impacts of cars is actually the space they take.  Whether you drive a hybrid or a SUV, the city infrastructures are the same: road space, highways and huge parking lots that have negative economic, social and environmental impacts such as the heat island effect that reduces the air quality of our cities.

Of course, one will say: “but I can’t go to work and do the groceries without my car”.  And you are probably right.  One might “choose” to bike to work, but if bicycle infrastructures are just not accessible and safe, one will likely “choose” to take their car.  Which brings the main point of this section: that “choice” is barely a choice at all.  65% of the people who live in Vienna, Austria ”choose” green transportation choices (walking, cycling and public transit) to commute to work.  That level is about 1% in Houston, Texas.  Obviously, Austrians are a bit different than Texans, but they are not THAT different.  Austrians, just like Texans, breathe air and love their children.  The difference is that Vienna has great infrastructures for cyclists, pedestrians and transit users, while Houston has great infrastructures for car users.

Don’t buy stuff

Stuff are things that we don’t need.  You decide to have a cell phone, fine!  Then, why do you feel the need to change make every four-months?  Over consumption and consumerism are actively killing the planet and brings huge public and private debts that are ruining our lives.  Instead of using your free time to “shop till you drop” (which sounds like a medical condition to me), how about having a conversation with an old friend.  “Don’t buy stuff” simply means live better, simpler and less stressed lives.  And less stress is (again!!!) good for your health.

I hope you fine this take on greening the planet useful and not too overwhelming.  “Saving the planet” essentially requires shifting our mindset and valuing other things than just material wealth.  Much more than sacrifices, building an ecologically and economically sustainable world mostly requires changing a few habits.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

________________________________________

Jenny Shutek’s comment on the banning of the full-face veil issue in France seem to miss a few key elements.

First, France has used the Euro as currency since 1999. The fine proposed for wearing a full-face veil are from 150 to 15,000 Euros, not Franc. However, my main criticism is towards the fact that the author seems to misunderstands religion in the French culture. France is a country that had centuries of religious wars. As a result of these wars, France passed very strict laws on secularism in 1905.

These laws forbid, for example, children from wearing a cross while in school. These laws have significantly reduce religious tension in France. It is in that context that one must understand the issue of the Islamic scarf in France.

Banning the full-face veil might or might not be the right answer to this issue, however for most people in France the issue is not between Christianity and Islam, but between a religious or a secular society.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Respect of personality types: the next challenge of human rights?

There are as many personality types as there are people in this world. This richness is a remarkable asset for humanity. However, as we all have strengths and weaknesses, could it be possible that some social practices specifically prejudice certain types of individuals?

Human Rights have seen amazing progresses in the last few centuries. From the abolition of slavery, to women’s right to vote and the legalization of same-sex marriage, Human Rights tend to protect more and more people. These developments have allowed many individuals to contribute significantly to the society in which they live. However, beyond this statement, the gradual disappearance of discriminations has another advantage. The diversity generated from these rights, brings huge advantages to organizations, communities and nations that practice the respectful integration of differences.

However, as many forms of discrimination are no longer tolerated, there is one area where they are not only common, but probably on the rise: discriminations based on personality types.

Anyone who lives in a big family surely noted that, despite sharing many similarities with their siblings, there are key differences that appear early in childhood. For example, there is the shy brother who does not speak much, the sister who always cries before bath time, etc. In other words, we all have different personalities, with our strengths and our flaws. One could almost argue that life is about developing our talents and accepting our weaknesses. But that is another topic altogether.

Personality tests often help understanding ourselves and are generally good guides when choosing a profession for example. However, their usage can sometimes be inappropriate. For instance, many companies use them to select the right candidates for specific jobs. This practice is legitimized by the need to have a cohesive working environment. However, one danger arising from such practice is the emergence of “groupthink”. This occurs when different members of an organization have the same concerns, values and priorities. Often, the same methods are used, resulting with the same conclusions, and implementing the same solutions to a problem. The danger when “groupthink” occurs is that often the same mistakes are repeated.

A study, The Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, published a few months after the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003, severely criticized NASA for maintaining and even fostering a “groupthink” environment. In this case, too few engineers were in executive positions, generally filled up by managers coming from business schools. This contributed to a lack of technical discussions at management level that resulted in accumulation of errors, which killed seven astronauts and delayed significantly the U.S. space program.

The survival of the human species?

In her book, The Highly Sensitive Person (Broadway Book, 1996), Elaine Aron explains that any human society is composed of two types of individuals. The “Warrior-Kings” are risk-takers, tend to be aggressive and enable society to expand. The “Royal-Advisors” are cautious, reserved, and make sure society survives. Beyond their differences, the survival of any group depends on the cooperation between these two types of individuals. Any business, government, or neighbourhood association, etc. needs both types to survive. If not, major dysfunction occurs.

According to the author, the “Royal-Advisors” have lost influence over the “Warrior-Kings” in the last fifty years. This is because the society in which we live promotes high production in stressful environments, and gives little emphasis on reflection. In an article by Josée Blanchette in Le Devoir on October 16, 2009 on the same subject, the latter wrote: “We want compassionate doctors but, above all, they must be able to complete a consultation in five minutes. This leads to a shortage of more sensitive doctors, nurses and teachers.”

Many people are therefore victims of a subtle discrimination that even seems justified. Some practices or work environments often prevent more perceptive and insightful people to develop their capacities. The contrary is also probably true, which could explains why there are as few compassionate doctors as there are organized artists! The first step to resolve these injustices is of course to realize that such discriminations exist in the first place. If some factors affect negatively certain people, then the losers are not only those individuals, but everyone who could benefit from their contribution to society.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

VANOC: Oppressing Olympic fans in both official languages

While I think that there are more pressing issues, such as the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili, and the horrendous response from VANOC and the International Luge Federation, basically blaming the now-silenced victim for his own death.  Or the fact that the Olympic Cauldron is behind a fence that makes the whole site look like it’s in jail, which symbolizes perfectly VANOC mismanagement of the whole Olympic fiasco.  I’ll briefly write about the place of French-language at the Olympics.

I personally think that… it’s generally OK.  The overwhelm majority of Olympic-related signs in Vancouver are bilingual.  The Opening ceremony was in both official languages.  What many do not understand is that Vancouver, while being in Canada, is not a very francophone city.  And it is Vancouver who host the Olympics, not bilingual Canada.

Since John Furlong doesn’t speak French, VANOC could have a second person speaking in Molière’s language at the opening ceremony.  Other than minor elements such as the one previously mentioned, the 2010 games are fairly bilingual.  Or at least, as bilingual as Vancouver can get.

Of all the things that are badly managed by VANOC, the place of French at the opening ceremony, is a relatively minor mishap in my opinion.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

Please find below my Statement of interest.  Good luck to all candidates, and to me too.

________________________________________

By providing a middle ground to owning a vehicle and relying on transit and cycling, the Co-operative Auto Network contributes to improving the lives of its members, our communities and the environment. It is with this vision in mind that I offer my abilities to CAN and submit my candidacy to the Board of Directors.

My priority, as a member of the board, would be to expand the Car co-op network into the suburbs (Surrey, Richmond, etc.). This would benefit not only potential members currently living in the suburbs, but also those who occasionally require a vehicle in suburbia. Other projects are to provide documentation in other languages, keeping sound financial management, providing better access to the Board of Directors and a review of the complain process.

Living in South Vancouver (Marpole) since 2001, I joined CAN before there was a vehicle in my neighbourhood. Since then, my involvement has included volunteered for a few presentation shows and working in the main office as a Call Centre Manager and a Member Care Co-ordinator, first on a full time basis, then on-call, from 2007 to 2009. Fluent in French and English, I also speak decent Spanish and basic Cantonese. I am currently completing on a part time basis a certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University. I also comment on social and environmental issues in a monthly column in L’Express du Pacifique newspaper and on the web: www.vancf.net.

Thank you,

Frédéric Van Caenegem

A similar phenomenon (screaming out loud meaningless numbers) also happened recently at the Copenhagen summit on climate change. When it comes to global warming, we hear talks of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% in 5 years; 20% by 2020; 25% less of now; 30% based on 1990 emissions; etc. Everywhere, officials and politicians are shouting numbers and targets. These promises and numbers have no more chances of becoming reality than I respecting my New Year resolution.

My father often says that politicians that do not respect their promises should be sent to the guillotine. While the style is a bit extreme, he has a point. Politicians do not suffer punishment when promises are broken. Even worse, they regularly are re-elected. And for that no one is to blame but us.

The Kyoto Protocol had ambitious targets and look where it got us? Most of the countries that endorsed it are in no position to reach their targets. Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol under Jean Chrétien and it made his government look good. However, that same government introduced ridiculously insignificant measures when time came to be concrete about global warming. Just read for yourself: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/08/12/kyototue030812.html. The result of inaction is an increase of CO2 emissions of 26% since 1990! We were supposed to reduce them by 6% under the Kyoto protocol. At least the Bush administration was clear that they were not even going to try reaching their targets.

The problem with the Kyoto protocol was not lack of ambitions, but lack of concrete measures. A real reduction of greenhouses gases emissions requires commitment by citizens, industry and institutions. It requires money, methods and penalties. It needs money to build green transportation infrastructures, to mass produce solar panels or protect the Amazon rain forest. And it requires stiff penalties for industries or countries that do not reach their objectives, or worse, do not even try, such as Canada.

All the media focus is on meaningless numbers. While groups are pushing for concrete measures and objectives, this gets no recognitions in press time. The extremely meagre and disappointing Copenhagen Agreement has at least one positive thing that Kyoto Protocol didn’t: measures. The agreement reached in Copenhagen, while disappointing, may be a step in the right direction. In that agreement there are no targets and numbers, but funding. The funding is not enough, however, it is probably better than some ambitious toothless protocol.

Frédéric Van Caenegem

First, I was stunned by the results of the electoral change (STV) referendum last May.  Although, I respect the will of the people, I still think British Columbians were wrong.  I sometime feel that people are waiting for a simple solution that will fix everything.  In the meantime, we let go of good compromise that improve some things.  The proverb says, “loose the battle, but don’t loose the lesson”.  I have yet to learn an positive lesson from that experience.

The second, more positive and more important reason regarding my recent silence is that I am busy with studies that I started in May 2009.  I am attempting to complete a Certificate in Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University (http://www.sfu.ca/cscd/).  These studies keep me quite busy and focused so I think I have to apologized if I have not written on my blog recently.  But silence is not always negative.  In this case, silence comes from pursuing other activities.  So I guess it is true then, Silence is Golden and I hope you can stand the overwhelming sound of silence.

Frédéric Van Caenegem