Science and the Canadian Government

I watched a depressing, sad and infuriating TV program last night. CBC's The Fifth Estate devoted the entire hour to a discussion about how internationally recognized Canadian scientist are being laid off and world renown Canadian scientific programs are being dismantled by the current government. This is not a new story. Bits and pieces of it have been on the national news for the past five or six years. (Although the news that the government had closed a number of scientific libraries and dispersed/ destroyed the information only came to light this week). But it was, at least to me, incredibly sad to hear from and to see the faces of the scientists who had lost their jobs speak with such passion about their work. 

Click on the above link and watch the program. It is worth the time. We all need to know what is going on. We need to understand the consequences of the Conservative Government's decision to ignore science when it says things they don't like. But there is also a deeper perhaps more worrying aspect to the story; there is a lesson to be learned about the political strategy that this government employs to weaken the country and thereby reduce resistance to the changes that they are bringing about regardless of whether or not the majority want them.

When I was attending university about 10 years ago, there was a lot of conversation in the "Arts" part of the school. There was great concern and frustration amongst those who had a passion for the Humanities and for the Social Sciences that funding was being re-directed from their programs courses to the science departments. There was a sense that the courses that talked about the world in terms of history, literature and how people matured as societies had become less important AND that the science folks thought that that was the way it should be. I never heard anyone say that both the arts and the sciences were equally integral to the university community. Quite frankly I think most of the science departments were delighted that they had more access to funding and therefore to the power at the administrative level of the university. The very people who had made it their life's work to understand how the world worked from a social point of view were demoted to a second class position within some universities. 

Now science is being attacked or at least certain branches of it are. It makes one wonder who is in line to have their funding chopped and their research maligned.  Will the "golden programs" of economic or applied research be next? One could almost wonder why the government appears to be afraid of anyone who thinks differently from them?

This tactic of divide and conquer is not a new tactic. Mike Harris won two elections in Ontario using this strategy. One wonders when we, as a collective, will understand and stop responding to it.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
 
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
 
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
 
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

Martin Niemöller

Holocaust Encyclopaedia

Light Bulbs

I do not like being told what to do. I especially do not like to being lied to, tricked or manipulated into doing the "right thing".  My most recent complaint is the Canadian government's moral high ground stance on saving the planet by insisting that I need to switch to using compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. 

It is an absurd proposition to assume that if everyone uses a more efficient light bulb we will start to resolve the issues around climate change. It is the same sort of logic that argued that we should turn off the water when we brush our teeth to deal with the issues of water shortages. I would perhaps be more supportive of such government initiatives if that government demonstrated an equal concern about how industry uses water or electrical energy.

For example the Tar Sands of Alberta - so dearly loved by the Conservative Government - use "to produce 1 barrel of oil from the Athabasca oil sands ....., on average 2 to 4 barrels of water in the case of mining projects or.4 barrels of water in the case of SAGD projects " (Industry Report).( see also United Nations Environmental Alert Service).  Turning off the water when I brush my teeth (which I do) is not going to address the issue of the reduction of available groundwater. Far more water would be saved if the government banned the raising of beef for the simple reason that the production of meat uses a surprising amount of water. For example  "In 2010, 838 million cubic metres of water (in Canada) were used for irrigation"(Statistics Canada) . Hay was the most common crop watered (ibid)).

There are so many ways that we could save energy. Getting out of the Tar Sands is one obvious way. According the Globe and Mail, it is anticipated that the amount of energy needed to produce a barrel of oil will continue to increase. In a different article the same news service reported that "a new estimate by Ziff Energy Group, a Calgary-based energy advisory, predicts that oil sands gas consumption will rise to three billion cubic feet (bcf) a day, up from 1.1 bcf today" (Globe and Mail). To be clear -  we are using natural gas to extract oil - why don't we just use the natural gas?

On a personal level we could start to turn off the lights when we leave a room and turn off all of electronic gadgets. (10% of the average electric bill is because of phantom power) 

In the meantime we are stuck with a weak law that has so many holes in it that it is not going to be very effective. For the next year "75- and 100-watt incandescent bulbs will be banned, followed by 40- and 60-watt versions on Dec. 31, 2014" (CBC News). On top of that, the aforementioned bulbs can still be sold as long as they were manufactured before January 1, 2014. Who wants to bet that there is a huge stock pile somewhere and that those bulbs will start to become more and more expensive? It is a law that will allow the government to say it cares about the environment and perhaps even worse, allow people (who can afford to purchase the far more expensive CFL bulbs) say that they are doing something useful.

It is a bad law that does little good and may in fact do harm. I believe that we all need to do our part. But we need to make sure that we are focusing our efforts in the right direction. We also need honest leadership.