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.

Explaining Politics -Not

I would have a hard time explaining to an alien from outer space how Canadian politics work. It would be easy enough to explain how, on paper, our parliamentary system is supposed to function, but telling the stranger why people do what they do, why they, in many instances, seem to vote against what is best for them or their neighbours and all too frequently we collectively make decisions that fly in the face of all logic. The visitor from some distant galaxy would get a completely different explanation depending on who they spoke to, where they lived, how old they were and in many cases what gender they assigned to themselves. If I tried to explain how politics work in another country worked, I would be even more unsuccessful.

While one can explain how politics work (or rather don't) in the USA by just stating the obvious - they are all crazy or incredibly short-sighted, it is much harder to understand what is going on in Great Britain. It would appear as if the party who is guaranteeing that Britain will leave the EU will win - in spite of the fact that a significant percentage of Britons do not want to leave. How terrible it must be to have to support an act that makes little sense to anyone if for no other reason that it is not clear what leaving will actually mean.

I think traditionalist like me, people who were raised in the 50s and 60s by families that were quite clearly more aligned to Great Britain than to the US, naturally assume that GB is the elder statesman of democracy - they, after all, invented it (or at least we were told). We expect their system after seven or eight hundred years of evolution to have all of the kinks worked out of it. But the reality is that democracy, like so many other things, must always be a work in progress. Just because a country or a culture has always done something a certain way does not mean that that way is still the right way. However, the evolution of a democracy used to be a slow process, only gently influenced by current events. Institutions would take years to make even minor adjustments. Changes in very small increments would happen after extensive consultation and sometimes immense pressure sustained over years. Almost nothing happened as a direct result of current events. Politicians were somewhat isolated more often than not from the affairs of most of their constituents.

That is no longer true. We live in a time where there is almost near-instantaneous communication. We expect our politicians to know everything we know as fast as we know it. We expect them to respond just as quickly. There is no time for careful consideration of all of the facts, of slow and often painfully laborious debates or reviews. No longer are people required to be respectful or even educated in the matter. We all have the right to yell, scream, post or email anyone and everyone - demanding quick answers and solutions.

It is hard to deny the people's right to engage their elected representatives. It is equally as hard to disagree with the fact that the world is better off when the barriers that were created by status, race or gender have been dissipated (or at least started to). But it could be argued that in our passionate desire to allow everyone to have an equal right to engage the politicians - we have deleted the buffer zone that allowed people time to think about what is the best direction to take.

We have all too frequently been reduced to serving those with the loudest voices or those who are the most organized or those who have the most money to spread their message. It perhaps has always been that way, but it seems to me, at least in the case of Great Britain that they would benefit from an extended period of sober thought - without people screaming at each other that they alone know the right course of action.

Looking for the Good News

It is tempting to label all politicians as self-serving, witless buffoons who generally would not know how to organize a sock drawer, never mind draft policies and laws that would govern a country. Hundreds of pundits and bloggers do so on a daily basis in part because it is just so easy to do so. It does not matter what our political bent is, there are numerous examples of the incompetence of politicians regardless of their ideological leanings. Some days it is difficult to find any examples of a politician and even harder - a group of politicians who demonstrate any capacity to work together to effect good - or at least good for anyone different than themselves. But our cynicism is partially self-inflicted in that we do not demand that politicians work together, we certainly do not reward those that do. In fact, I suspect that our interest in politics and the activities of those we have elected is directly proportional to the level of political absurdities and stupidity that the media reports. Politics are boring if everyone agrees with each other and if all are working towards a common goal. The media has learnt that if you wanted to attract readers/listeners/viewers - you need to sensationalize the news, you need to stress the bits that will get people reacting.

This approach has a couple of consequences. One is that it teaches the public that we should distrust all politicians who do not think like us, secondly that there are only black and white answers to all issues and that there is no middle ground where consensus can be negotiated and thirdly - that politicians learn that to get attention and therefore be re-elected - they need to say and do things that facilitate that polarization. It is a vicious circle - politicians get rewarded by being extreme in their opinions in part by demonstrating a limited (or no) capacity to think, individuals are attracted to media that both stimulates and reconfirms their beliefs/values, politicians get re-elected on meaningless platforms. The form is all that matters, the substance has become irrelevant.

And yet, at least in Canada, there are some real tangible signs that not all politicians are incompetent and that there is a real possibility that some of them, from different political parties, are at least willing to consider that they can and should work together. This week, CBC reported a few comments by politicians and others that suggest that things may not be as unworkable as the pundits suggest. Ford, the Premier of Ontario has suggested that he can work together with the federal government to address some of the issues - in fact he describes his meeting with Trudeau as being "very productive, very collaborative". Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage described her first meeting with the federal Natural resource Minister ( Seamus O'Regan) as "very good start." The oil and gas leaders of Alberta are welcoming the appointment of Anne McLellan as an unpaid adviser to the government.

What is remarkable about all three of those stories is how little press they received, how little enthusiasm was generated by the possibility that maybe, just maybe politicians will work together to solve some of the issues that arise in a country as large and as diverse as is Canada. They are small stories - nothing will change because some leaders have expressed some limited enthusiasm for some meetings but it is a start. We need to support those politicians and captains of industry, we need to reward them with our cheers, we need to encourage them to keep looking for the positives, we need to assure them that we prefer it when they work together, when they avoid looking for the negatives.

It is time that we, the people, start to control how the narrative is told. We need to tell the storytellers to change the manipulative spin on the stories that they chose to tell. That does not mean they ignore the bad stuff - just that they tell the whole story.

Neighbours to the South - A Mirror of What is to be?

It is easy and oh so tempting to look at the chaotic political gamesmanship occurring in the country to the south of Canada and say - " we could never act like that" or " our politicians could never be that bad". Most of us desperately need to believe that to be true. I would even suspect that a number of citizens of the US believe that their politicians cannot be willfully lying or manipulating the circumstances for their own political benefit. And yet the evidence on both sides of the border is quite clear. Some politicians/political parties will take positions that exist only to create or perpetuate conflict and disagreement. As clearly demonstrated by Trump and his allies, it doesn't seem to matter how absurd or fraudulent your position is - someone, perhaps a lot of people will believe you.

In Canada, the inflammatory messages might be more subtle and there would appear to be less interest in reacting to them. But there is a constant effort to drive wedges between groups of people or in Canada's case between regions. Take for example the leader of the Bloc who said that it does not matter who is in the new Canadian cabinet because "no one can make Canada a coherent country" (CBC). He then went on to say " the apparent division in Canada is a natural state for an artificial country [like] Canada" (CBC). The Bloc, given their stated goal to leave the confederation, will always use language that suggests that the confederation is not working and even that it should not exist. Some people in Quebec will agree with him, most just assume that it is a bit of reflexive, mindless political jostling. Unfortunately, some outside of Quebec will see his comments as one more bit of proof that Quebecers don't want to stay/belong in Canada and say something equally as stupid, thereby proving that the rest of Canada does not like Quebecers. Similarly, comments suggesting that some of the provinces (i.e. Alberta, Saskatchewan) would be better off going it alone are made and discussed every few years.

The question in my mind that begs to be asked is why do we not only allow politicians and others to make such statements but why do so many people get on a particular bandwagon. What is it about human nature (as someone who has studied/taught sociology I really dislike suggesting that there are some innate things about human behaviour) that encourages us to look for the differences between us. Why do are we always comparing ourselves to everyone else, one hand assuming that we are superior, while on the other hand assuming that we are being treat unfairly. It is almost as if we believe that we have the right to be treated as the best but that everyone is against us.

If we could only stop believing that everyone else is out to get us, to take advantage of our good nature life would be so much easier. If we could only accept that other people, even those we do not agree with - are good people and that they would never intentionally hurt us. After all - we are good people and we would never hurt anyone - right?

Bird Watching

Bird Watching

One of the joys of living where I live is that I can walk to the Cowinchan River in a few minutes. It is not that I often take the time to walk along the dike, but it is nice to know that it is there. The dike acts as a pathway for a number of local residents including some First Nation individuals who live just east of me and are walking to town and others who are walking their dogs. During the warm months, there are frequently a few individuals camping out in spots carved out of the dense undergrowth. In the spring the river rushes by, high enough for debris to get caught in the branches of the cottonwoods that line the banks. By late summer the water is so low that in some areas I could walk across it and not get my knees wet. On the other side of the river, there is a large park with a few spots that have been shaped by generations of families (and dog owners) into swimming areas.

During the late fall, the river becomes a very noisy place. Overhead, there are flocks of Canada geese heading south, all making that strange honking noise. One can imagine them shouting out to each other - arguing if they are reading the map correctly or wondering when they are going to stop for something to eat. Then as the salmon head upstream to spawn, the gulls start to fly overhead waiting for them to die. There are times when gulls' raucous calls are so loud that they drown out all other noises. I do my best to ignore their calls and wait until I hear the short, high pitched call of the eagle. I am always a bit surprised at how high and almost thin-sounding is the eagle's call. One would think that such a big bird, with all of the attention it gets - that it would have a more impressive, perhaps even awesome call.

Last week as soon as I heard the eagles' call I grabbed my camera and headed for the river. Eagles are certainly majestic and worth watching but their eating tastes and habit are not so inspiring. In fact, if one observes them during this time of year it is clear that they are opportunistic in their choice of food. They are scavengers.

The river was alive with birds. There were some wood ducks resting in small bays getting ready (I assume) for the trek south, some small water birds that I did not recognize although looking through my books, they might have been either the Common Goldeneye or perhaps some Bufflehead, hundreds of gulls flying through the air or wading on the rocky banks occasionally nibbling on a salmon carcass and the eagles perched in trees - occasionally going for a short flight, landing near a salmon, nibbling a bit and then going back to their roost. They all looked just a little bit lazy, like a family after a Thanksgiving turkey. There was lots more to eat - there were at least 15-20 dead salmon that I could see - but no one was hungry except for those who could not resist just one more nibble. Interesting - none of the birds paid any attention to or were cautious around the eagles. Everyone knew what was on the menu and it wasn't anything alive.

I am lucky to be able to see it all.