Election #6 Another Debate (A Good One This Time)

I normally would not have gone to a second local debate but the one I attended a week or so ago was so disappointing (as was the leaders' debate) that I felt the need to go out again to see if I could get a better feeling for the candidates that I will have to choose from.

I am pleased to say that the debate last night was pretty good. The fact that it was in a theatre with great sightlines, really comfortable seats and lots of legroom may have had something to do with my satisfaction but there was also a better format and a great moderator. As well, there were only four candidates on stage. I am not sure if other candidates were not invited or if some of the candidates have realized that they did not have a chance of being elected and have dropped out of the race. But having fewer people on stage meant that there was more time for questions.

There were three questions posed by the local chamber of commerce (the sponsors of the evening) and the other 24 questions came from participants at the debate. 27 questions is a lot to get through, but because the session lasted for almost two and a half hours - no one seemed to feel rushed. The range of questions included ones about abortion, the economy, the environment and a number of questions about local issues including the opioid crisis, the need for treatment centres and for affordable housing. It was a much wider range of question than were available at the other debates that I witnessed. It was of course not a debate. Each of the four candidates answered the question and in general avoided discussing another party's platform or track record in part because if another party was mentioned then that candidate got extra time to rebut the comments. But there was sufficient time for all to speak and to indicate their party's position.

The other well-designed thing about the event was the fact that someone had control over the microphones and as soon as an individual candidate had used their time - the microphone was turned off. This meant that there was no cross-talk. The national debate organizers could learn from this technique.

After the last two debates, I wondered if there was any point in watching them. I am now convinced that there is a way to have the candidates on the stage, speaking to the people. And that is good news.

Election #5 The Great (Sort of) Debate

I spent part of yesterday afternoon/evening watching five men and one woman generally avoid answering the questions by demeaning their opponents while at the same time trying to extol their own personal or their party's virtues. The one possible exception to that was Elizabeth May who on at least the environmental issues tried to stay on task. Unfortunately, for the Green Party, every question is really about the environment and her repetitions of the theme got a bit tiring. The other people vying for people's votes were similarly singularly focused on repeating their mantras: "I am good, everyone else is therefore bad".

It may not have been entirely their fault. Six people forced to engage in a predetermined format that limited anyone's comments to less than two minutes is a recipe for something other than a useful debate. All too often, in spite of various moderators attempts to get the party leaders to not talk over each other, it felt as if much of the time there were at least two people talking. I would not have minded that if they were saying something useful, new or even entertaining. But in fact, it seemed as if they had all memorized a handful of key phrases and accusations and threw those comments into the "debate" whenever they felt so inclined to do so.

This meant when one leader said something that was wrong, there was little time for any other leader to dispute the claim. For example, Sheer at least twice said that Trudeau had fired an Indigenous member of his cabinet because she disagreed with him. While this statement may have some truth in it, Trudeau may have asked for Jody Wilson-Raybould resignation (it is not actually clear if she resigned or was asked to leave cabinet). The fact that she was from a First Nation had nothing to do with it. To suggest that her firing was proof that Trudeau was not committed to a level of reconciliation is, at best, disingenuous. The debate format left no time to respond. It could have been an interesting conversation if the two leaders had had time to address that question. As it was, it was just a smear attack.

There were numerous other comments throughout the two hours that had no other function than to smear the reputation of an individual or a policy. I suspect that because the leaders knew the format before starting, and in fact, their "people" had negotiated it, they knew that they would be free to cast aspersions upon each other with no consequences. How could that be called a debate? It was no better than what so frequently happens in the House of Commons.

Given the size of the country and the impracticality of getting all of the leaders in the same spot more than two or three times, this may be the best that we can do. But I do not think so. With all due respect to the leaders, there were two that did not need to be there. The Bloc are only running candidates in Quebec - they have little to contribute to a national debate until such time as they see themselves as equal partners with other provinces. If they insist on arguing that they are a separate nation and therefore have the right to negotiate differently the rest, the leader of the Bloc brings little of use to the debate. Similarly, as I have noted elsewhere, Maxime Bernier has no seats in the house and should not have been there. If only the leaders of the four parties who have candidates across the country and who have seat in the House of Commons, perhaps we would have seen a real debate about the issues that are important.

The alternative would be a series of half hour debates - one on one. It would take a few hours longer, but at least we would see some real discussion of the real issues. As the format is now - it is just an exercise in seeing who can be nastier and who can shout the loudest. If there was ever an argument against proportional representation - having even more people at the debate would be it.

Election #4 - I Should Have Been a Politician

Every once in a while, I think about running for public office. Fortunately for both me and the public, this thought only occasionally invades my consciousness. It usually only happens when there is a provincial or like now, a federal election. The thought almost always pops into my head during or just after attending a candidates' debate. I can't help but wonder as I listen to those courageous people behind the microphone if I couldn't do better.

I attended such a debate last night. It was part of a series of debates that were happening across the country with the same four questions being asked at each meeting. In the case of Duncan, the debate was "televised" via social media to two other sites within the riding so that residents in those towns could also see the debate. The format was simple: four national questions , four local questions and then a few questions from each of the sites. Because the debate was on the environment, the questions were predictable, the answers seemingly predetermined with each of the four candidates almost obliged to sound "green" whether they were or not. It did not quite work out that was as one individual from what could be called a fringe party - suggested quite clearly that climate change was not really a problem. It put an interesting twist into the discussion - It could have been a debate but all of the candidates were far more interested in proving how green either they were, or their party was and therefore the evening was a series of comments generally unrelated to what others had said.

My minor urge to be a candidate was stimulated by what I can only assume to be the wilful ignoring of how complex the issues are. The candidates were generally in favour of solar power, electric cars, organic farming, our salmon rivers being restored, a reduction in tree cutting, fewer plastics used, access to safe and affordable housing and preventing the pollution of our waterways. Each of the questions asked was proceeded by a lengthy preamble as to the problem, a preamble that clearly suggested that there was a right answer and a wrong answer. The format allowed the candidates to answer the question in a very narrow way that enabled them to avoid complex issues. For example there were (of course) a few questions that dealt with our dependence on carbon fuels. While the candidates all enthused of the possibilities of electric cars, including one candidate who said his next car would be an electric one, no one mentioned the carbon costs and the social costs of producing the batteries required to operate the cars. 50% of the cobalt used in lithium batteries comes from Democratic Republic of Congo - a country that has a horrendous human rights record that includes various warring factions using both rape as a weapon and child soldiers. In many cases the profits from mining in the Congo go to fund the purchase of even more guns etc. The fact that solar cells require various rare earth minerals and it is not clear whether or not we can access sufficient quantities (https://www.vice.com/en_us /article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy). It is not that we should stop developing these technologies but rather that politicians need to articulate that there are consequences to our desire to go green.

Similarly, while it is hard to argue against the theory that organic gardening is better for the environment, no one talked about the cost of those fruits and vegetable - costs that for some people are just too much. People talked about the fact that our water sources appear to be drying up, but no one talked about our desire to eat foods that need to be irrigated. Everyone agreed that we need more housing, but no one talked about the fact that building new houses will require wood or plastic (which comes from oil). No one talked about that as we build new single family dwellings - we are covering land that could be and in many cases was used to grow food.

However, the question that really made me want to be a politician was the one that asked how could we make airplane travel more carbon neutral. It was, of course, an impossible question. But all of the candidates tried. However, if I had been at the front of the room, I would have suggested that it was the wrong question. I would have asked - why in Canada do we need to fly from city to city. The answer is that our passenger rail service is so pathetic that no one now has the almost four days required to go from Vancouver to Toronto.

Debates are part of the democratic process, but surely we need to find a way that allows for the candidates to demonstrate that they understand that nothing is a simple as it sounds in a 90-second answer.

Greta Thurnberg #2

It is all rather exhilarating to read about millions of young people getting out on the street and demanding that their governments do something about climate change. As one reads about the protesters marching in the streets and listens or reads about the powerful, impassioned speeches that young people are making, one could easily believe that this time - the world will change. This time someone in a position of power will do something, almost anything to not only stop the seemingly inevitable environmental disaster about to face us but in fact - start to reverse it. However, that could only be true if politicians are listening to and will respond to the protesters, protesters who cannot vote. One could believe that change is imminent except for the fact that none of the protesters has a plan to effect the needed change. None of them has a solution. The truth is that there is not a single plan - there are so many possibilities that politicians can promise to work on, that nothing will change. The changes needed at the political level are so complex that it will take a number of political cycles to effect those changes. No government in the democratic world will stay in power long enough to ensure that something happens.

Unlike the protests that revolved around the Vietnam war or the protests that demanded some sort of voter equality for Afro-Americans - there is not a single solution to climate change. There is not a quick fix. No country can unilaterally declare that they will immediately stop polluting the air. No country can change the amount of carbon in the air - at least not in the short term - by planting a billion trees. No country can quickly cut its dependence on oil. The solutions - and there are some - are all long term. Before we can stop spewing carbon into the air - we need to create the industries that can build the alternative forms of transportation. Before we, at least at a national level, can be carbon neutral we need to invest billions of dollars into creating the infrastructure. For example, getting rid of the internal combustion engine will do much to reduce all of our carbon footprints. But not only do we need to create a network of charging stations, but we also need to create trucks that can carry our goods across the country. It is possible - it just requires the political will, a pile of cash and time.

There are a number of long term solutions that make take a decade or more before they are in place. That is not a reason to do nothing. But it is a reason to be both practical and to take responsibility for our own personal carbon footprint. The inability of national governments to develop some sort of consensus for any sort of action does not mean that we should not protest. Rather it means that people should get out the streets to yell and scream even more often- if for no other reason than it reminds the politicians that we are watching them. But we need to do more on a personal level.

Every time we buy new clothes from offshore we have increased our carbon footprint, every time we buy a green pepper or a head of lettuce we are both increasing our carbon footprint and lowering the water table in some part of the world, every time we buy or use some new technology - we are putting the climate at risk.

It is not the big corporations or the governments who have caused the problem - it is us and our insatiable desire to have the newest thing, different clothes or the newest super vegetable or fruit. We may need the government to do the big global things. But if every protester and all of their families and friends did the small things - I would b a lot more optimistic about the governments of the western world finally getting the message.

Tea Bags and Plastic

I do not live a decadent lifestyle. If I drink, it is usually a glass of $10.00 wine. I don't gamble. Except when I am travelling, I almost never eat in restaurants and my definition of fine food is a plate of brown rice with some broccoli and mushrooms on top. I really try to keep my life as simple as possible. When I relax, all I want is a cup of tea - a drink that has been drunk for centuries around the world. In fact, according to Wikipedia other than water, tea is drunk more than any other beverage. (https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Tea). Plain tea is very simple - boiling water poured over the leaves of a specific plant that originally came from Asia but now grows in various parts of the world. That is all. How can tea not be good for you - or at least harmless?

The answer is plastic. Tea and plastic - two words that should never be used in the same sentence. Tea is natural, plastic is made from oil. But the purveyors of high-end teas have decided to use plastic tea bags for their best teas. And it turns out that those plastic bags release literally billions of microbeads of plastic into the tea which then end up in our guts (Globe and Mail).

Life is incredibly complex. There are all kinds of disasters happening all around us. Some of those disasters are, at least initially completely beyond our capacity to predict. But surely, with all of the discussions as to the number of micro bits and pieces of plastic that are floating in our rivers, lakes and oceans, some bright person at the tea company would have realized that using plastic for tea bags would potentially cause problems. Don't they test things before they release them to the public?

On the other hand, perhaps it is some sort of far-left dastardly plot to kill off all of the capitalists drinking their premium brands of tea.

Greta Thunberg

It is interesting to read various people's reaction to Greta Thunberg's, the 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, address to the UN. Some people are stuck in a rut - arguing as to whether or not her comments were polite enough or appropriate for a young person to make to her "betters". Others are, somewhat unbelievably, arguing that there is no such thing as climate change and that therefore there was no need for her to be there at all. Some people seem to feel it is all a public relations ploy engineered by the political left or her parents or that she is being manipulated by participants in some sort of weird conspiracy plot designed to change life as we know it. I am sure if I dug down deep enough, I would find at least a few people suggesting that is was all an alien plot intended to soften the world up for an alien invasion.

I do not have a clue as to who wrote her speech. I do not care if her thoughts have been influenced by her parents or by people who think that the world leaders need to get off of their butts and do something. It does not matter if she is a bit vulnerable or perhaps easily influenced. In fact the whole debate about who she is etc is just a smokescreen so that people do not have to confront the reality that our climate is changing and that while some of those changes might be due to cyclical complex weather patterns, some of the changes are clearly because of what humans have spewed into the atmosphere, the land and the water.

It is easy to get distracted by how she got here, how she travels about or to debate her age or her relative lack of sophistication in terms of world affairs. She clearly is relatively sheltered, coming from a first world country with access to all types of services and levels of education. She is at best naive in terms of her understanding of both the science and of what needs to happen to address the problem in a meaningful way. But none of that means that her message is wrong

For all of those people who think her a near -saint or as someone who can motivate the leaders of the developed world to create policies that will reverse the changes in our climate - they are wrong. For all of those people who see Greta Thunberg as our saviour, a person worthy of the next Nobel Peace prize - they are living in a fantasy world that is doomed to be drowned in the next flood or else be turned into a desert. She is not our knight in shining armour, she will not cause anyone to do anything. Nothing will change because of her impassioned speech - as impressive as it was. Unfortunately, a handful of inspired by her but privileged high school students protesting for a day will be equally as un-useful.

The only hope is that she and others like her will be able to convince their older peers who can vote - to do so. And that those new voters will vote for individuals and parties that have both the vision and the capacity to act. The only hope is that she and others like her will be able to convince their parents to vote for those same individuals and parties. And the only hope is that all of those young people will be able to convince their peers and the others in their lives that we cannot keep on living a lifestyle that depletes the earth's resources.

Greta Thunberg may be a wonderful person, but changing the world is everyone's job. We must not abdicate our responsibilities to her.

A Very Minor Rant on Trucks

I think I can understand a person's (generally a male's) desire to drive a pick-up truck. And without a doubt, the bigger the truck - the better it must feel. There must be some sort of ego rush as one drives down the road, perhaps a foot or so higher than anyone else, lording it over all the drivers of smaller vehicles. The driver may argue that he needs the truck for work (although the truck bed is frequently cleaner than my trunk has ever been) or that he has things he needs to cart to the dump or back from Home Depot, but the fact is that he seldom needs a truck and he almost never in his life will need a truck with such big tires that one almost needs a step stool to get into it.

If it wasn't for the large carbon footprint that these trucks have from both the amount of fuel they burn and the energy needed to manufacture them - I would almost be inclined to say it is none of my business. If someone wants to spend all of that money on a four-passenger vehicle, it has very little to do with me. Certainly, there is nothing that I can do change the owners' minds. Except.....

Large pick-up trucks, oversized SUVs and cans are a menace to smaller cars. Those of us who drive smaller cars do so either because it is all that we can afford or because it is environmentally responsible to do so. Every time I am on the highway, I am very aware that if any one of those pick-up trucks crashes into me - especially those with the extra chromed, extra-large bumper - I am dead. Not because I am driving an unsafe car, but because the other driver is driving something to boost his ego.

On Saturday, I found a new reason to dislike big pick-up trucks. I was downtown and needed to park my car. I found a spot in a parking lot about three rows away from the street. I got out and walked towards the street. I could not get through rows of parked vehicles. There were 6-7 big trucks in a row and their oversized side view mirrors were so close to the next truck that there was no room for me to squeeze through. It is bad enough when large vehicles park in spots clearly designated for smaller cars or when they block my sightlines but now the drivers are even making it difficult for pedestrians.

Maybe we should ban such vehicles from city streets and parking lots. I am not really serious - but I do wish someone could explain to me the value of large pick-up trucks.