I Want a New Car

I want to buy a new car. More specifically, I want to buy an electric car. Please note I said I want to buy a new car not that I need to buy a new car. There a number of reasons why I want to buy one including the fact that it seems to be the environmentally right thing to do. If I got one a bit bigger it would mean packing up to go to the market would be a lot easier, the thought of never buying gas unless I got a hybrid) ever again is attractive and it would be fun to have something that smelt brand new and had all of the bells and whistles. As well there would be that little bit of ego boost that would come from driving something that was slightly ahead of the curve. I am not sure if I can afford one but there are some rebates available that might make an electric or a hybrid vehicle more affordable.

Except - I am not sure if electric cars are better for the environment. Everyone says they are. It makes sense to spew less carbon into the air but how much do I spew over a year? I only drive about 12,000 kilometres a year in a small four-cylinder car. How much carbon can I possibly be spewing? More importantly what is the real cost to the environment when one buys a new battery-operated vehicle?

In an article in the November issue of the Walrus, an article by Vivane Fairbank (Greener and Cleaner) discusses (amongst other things) whether or not the building techniques that are used in passive homes are all that environmentally friendly. The article discussed embodied carbon - that is the carbon emissions that are either created when a product is built or dispersed when that item has exceeded its life span and must be disposed of. The article argues that we need to analyze the life-cycle of a product before we consider it to be carbon neutral or not.

Fairbank cites a number of articles that suggested that not all of our attempts to be carbon neutral are useful. For example, using reusable bags made of organic cotton (an especially polluting industry )might reduce the number of plastic bags in the environment but that bag needs to be used 20,000 times before it will use less carbon than a single-use plastic bag. While all of our present attempts to put less carbon into the environment are a good thing, it does the world little good if we pollute the world in other ways by using rare earth minerals and polluting manufacturing processes. They do even less good if we will increase the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere when we dispose of those things 20 years from now.

When one considers such things as the energy required to mine and process the lithium for the batteries or the quantity of plastic that is used plus the cost of disposing of all of those items that are not recyclable when they are no longer needed, perhaps amount of embodied carbons will exceed the amount of carbon that I would have put into the atmosphere if I just drove my present car. If I buy an electric vehicle I may reduce, in the short term, the amount of carbon I put into the air by not using a petroleum product to power my car, but - am I just downloading the problem for the future to deal with?

Yes, I want a more efficient car. I am just not sure if my grandchildren can afford

Teachers' Strike in Ontario - There is a Good Reason

Many, if not most, of Ontario's high school students, are home for the day. It is a bit unusual for the teachers to all take a day off in the middle of the semester- but it is probably a good way of reminding the Ontario government that the teachers are collectively committed to winning at least some of their bargaining points in their negotiations. At this point, I suspect that for most of the parents in the province it is only a bit of an inconvenience, if the elementary system was shut down there would be far more concern - particularly over daycare issues for the day. The apparent lack of interest on the part of parents and the public, in general, is unfortunate and it is dangerous.

If I were a parent, I would be particularly concerned about the proposed classroom sizes and by the fact that in a year or two - all students will be required to take four (out of 30) of their courses on-line. According to various media sources some classes already have up to 42 students in them. I suppose that is a manageable number if all of those 42 students are highly motivated, reasonably bright, without any specific learning needs and well behaved. I have to wonder if in any public school - one could find 42 students with all of those attributes. In subjects such as math which build on previous learning (if you don't understand one of the steps - it is hard to proceed to the next) and may require more detailed explanation and longer learning times for some of the students - such large class sizes seem to accept that some students will be unsuccessful. While increased class sizes may save money in the short term - an under-skilled and frustrated workforce will add costs to the social support system when those students are adults. It is a false saving. In courses such as English or the social sciences that require dialogue between the students and the teacher, the absurdity of trying to have meaningful conversations should be obvious even to the Conservative government. The thought of having 40+ students in a chemistry lab or in a wood-working shop is just too frightening to think about.

It is, however, the concept of mandatory e-learning that concerns me the most. There are a number of professional educators - many of whom have their graduate degree in education who like the concept of e-learning. They like it because they earned their graduate degree at an online university. They argue that their MA is exactly the same as those who went to university. They are wrong. It may be a valid degree, they may have covered the same type of topics - but being in a classroom for a three-hour seminar every week is different than looking at a screen. Doing the readings and having to discuss/argue what one has read is profoundly different than looking at a computer monitor. It develops a whole set of skills (and relationships) that one can't develop when learning in isolation.

Mandatory online courses assume that every student will have access to a relatively current computer and software, a high-speed internet connection and a home setting that will ensure both the space and the support are available to complete the course work. Almost as important - it will require young people to be self-motivated -a characteristic that is not always obvious in teenagers. Such expectations are absurd, even worse, they are discriminatory. The effects of such a policy will negatively affect students from low-income families, immigrants and those with different learning abilities. It demonstrates a profound disconnect between those who create policy and those who have to bear the consequences of that policy.

Online learning is a poor substitute for face-to-face teaching. For a number of students it will help them fast track their education, for thousands of students it will limit their learning opportunities. The government is potentially creating a whole sub-class of people who will not graduate from high school and who will only be eligible for the most menial jobs - jobs that no longer exist outside the poor paying service industry.

If I were a parent of a school-aged child - I would be out there marching with the teachers.

Admiration for Jason Kenny's Political Acumen

I do not like Jason Kenney (premier of Alberta). I do not like his far-too-right social or fiscal conservatism. I think his desire/need to play to the lowest common denominator and his manipulations of the Alberta public's emotions are dangerous. For example, he is the only provincial leader I can think of who has committed a large sum of public money (30 million dollars) to create an office to fight anyone and everyone who has a different point of view when it comes to the environment. He even calls it a war room - making all Albertans feels as if they are in a life or death struggle for their lives. I especially do not like Kenney's continuous efforts to prove that Alberta is poorly treated by not just the federal government but everyone who disagrees with him. He is using a well-used tactic to generate support - just read some of Churchill's or later Roosevelt's speeches made during WWII. It seems as if, that for him - it is not a matter of creating good policy that will attract voters but rather finding enough enemies so that the public will believe that no one else can protect them.

I think there may be some real cause for concern over some of his shady electoral practices - specifically during his campaign to become the leader of his party. Unfortunately, we may never know what shenanigans he and his fellow party members got up in the provincial elections as he has conveniently fired the civil servant in charge of investigating the electoral process. It is, however, hard for me to believe that if some of the people in the leadership campaign did things that have been judged illegal - that one, he did not know about it and that two, people would not have continued to bend the rules in the provincial campaign.

I have, however, some admiration for Kenney's political skills or acumen. In fact, he could have/should have demonstrated to Premier Ford of Ontario how to not screw up the federal Conservative campaign. Kenney has announced this week a number of significant public service cuts - specifically in the medical field that should raise some very loud alarms in Alberta (and in any other province with similar governments). The cuts are large enough that not only will a number of skilled professionals lose their jobs, but I would have to wonder not if, but how significant will be the reduction of services. There is as well, the fear that the Albertan government will play out a traditional neo-liberal manipulation of government services. It starts off with reduced public services, then people complaining about the lack of services and then the government allowing for private companies to provide that service because it is clear that the public service cannot.

While the cuts are scary for anyone involved either as a practitioner or a patient, it is impressive that Kenney had the political shrewdness to not discuss any of these cuts until after the federal election. If the cuts had been announced at the beginning of September, I would guess that the federal Conservatives would have had a much harder time in some parts of Alberta. I am not sure if the Liberals would have actually gained in any seats but I have no doubt that their percentage of the popular vote would have increased. Because Kenny did not raise the ire or the fears of Albertans during the election, because he did nothing to suggest that fiscal and social conservatism policies can negatively affect individuals, Trudeau had less ammunition to fight Sheer - unlike in Ontario where Ford was a convenient whipping boy.