Now that much of the dust has settled on Cambridge Analytica‘s misuse of Facebook users data the sad story can now be told. It is critical to note upfront that Facebook was not hacked and that the information that was misused was provided voluntarily by Facebook Users. The only breach […]
There has been much talk in the recent decade about banning disposable plastic bags. The basic argument is that consumer grade disposable single use plastic bags are the root cause widespread environmental damage but have ready alternatives, so why are will still using them?
As is often the case with political issues, there is no simple answer to the question “Should single use plastic bags be banned?”. Below are some of the facts and you can decide for yourself if this is a crisis or not:
Let me start with the obligatory, I do not particularly like Donald Trump, believe much of what he says or think his campaign was shinny clean. That being said I do like to listen to both facts and common sense, so let’s go:
There are a few key points to consider when thinking about the claims that the Trump Campaign for President of the United States in 2016 was seriously aided by the Russian Government:
Below is an 11 minute interview with Dr. David Maenz about his new book The Price of Carbon. Unlike all climate change books we have reviewed in the past, The Price Of Carbon is the first one to pull together the serious science of Global Warming from Earths formation until today, explain the three likely outcomes of Global Warming, and then detail the PRACTICAL solutions to the issue.
This book is definitely not a casual read but for the educated person that is still open to thinking about this critical issue, it will be an eye opener:
At the heart of the Canadian Federal Governments announcement today about fixing the process that determines if a large scale project is in the best interest of Canada or not, is a desire to limit ability Provincial, Municipal and interest groups (like ‘First Nations’) to stall approved projects. The idea is to:
These are clearly admirable goals. To achieve those goals there are now going to be three structures that industry must pass through to get Federal Government support:
So now the questions are, will these changes allow:
There has been much debate over the process and all agree something big had to change:
Dennis McConaghy, a former senior executive at Trans Canada Pipelines thinks these changes will not achieve the desired goals:
Most Canadians think that they are getting their gasoline from Alberta and Texas, but that is just not the case. This 2016 graphic from Statistics Canada shows where Canada really gets its oil from:
The environmental lobby has mislead many well intentioned companies and intelligent individuals with the “keep it in the ground movement”. That logic only applies to “western societies” and has sadly resulted in serious efforts to block even the cleanest Oil & Gas projects for the last decade. The most recent tactic is to block the infrastructure required to make Oil & Gas functional; in particular pipelines are being opposed at every turn.
These next two points should clearly demonstrate that “keep it in the ground” is both naive and environmentally damaging.
The fact is that the most scientificly trustworthy energy industry research body in the world, the International Energy Association (IEA), agrees with dozens of other government and industry analysts that Oil & Gas demand will continue to EXPAND through the year 2040. 2040-2050 is the magic decade when China and India will have moved most of their citizens into the middle class.
Before you start thinking, ‘but wait, that will change if we ‘go electric”, note that the IEA is expecting massive amounts of electrification in the next 20+ years and has already wrapped those expectations into their projections. If we don’t have substantial electrification (solar, wind, electric cars,…) 2040 will not be the
Keep in mind the word EXPAND. This means that at about 2040, the world will not have stopped using oil and gas; this means that consumption will have peaked. After 2040, there will take between 100 to 200 years to cycle out of petroleum based products.
Having worked at a few pipeline companies, I know they take safety and spills very seriously but we see pipeline bursts and their resulting spills with frequency in the news so the question lingers: Are pipelines safe?
Let’s start by stating an obvious fact that no-one WANTS a pipeline or any other serious infrastructure (power lines, rail lines, highways…) in their back yard but without such infrastructure our modern world would grind to a halt. If we can agree on that as a fact, and not an opinion, we can rationally consider pipeline safety.
The factors determining the safety of any pipeline compared to rail or trucking are also obvious and visually undeniable. Below is a simple chart outlining some of the risk factors that go into transporting liquids and gases:
| Factor | Pipeline | Pipe Score | Train | Train Score |
| Above/Below Ground | Burried | 1 | Above Ground | 8 |
| Visibility | Very Low | 1 | Very High | 8 |
| Connections | Few | 1 | Many | 8 |
| Human Error Likelihood | Nearly Zero | 1 | Constant | 6 |
| Intentional Damage Likelihood | Very Low | 1 | Moderate | 5 |
| Easy of Stopping Leak | Very Easy | 1 | Very Difficult | 6 |
| Volume | Very High | 9 | Low | 3 |
| 24 Hr Monitoring | Excellent | 1 | Minimal | 8 |
| 16 | 52 |
While testifying on NAFTA in front of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Canadian Prime Minister told them:
“Canada is privileged to have the United States as a neighbor and friend. And the United States should thank its lucky stars, everyday, that they have Canada on their northern boarder.
This is is the most successful and peaceful bilateral agreement in world history”
“Canada is privileged to have the United States as a neighbor and friend. And the United States should thank its lucky stars, everyday, that they have Canada on their northern boarder.
This is is the most successful and peaceful bilateral agreement in world history”
Multinational trade negotiations are often accused being a closed door mess with a never ending series of mistakes, but Canadian negotiating strategies on NAFTA have been very successful.
Successful is a subjective word and this site aims to keep to the facts and avoid too much opinion, so let’s define success. In the context NAFTA negotiations, success is defined as a trade agreement that is as favorable to your country as possible, with least amount of drama.
Canada, so far, has been “walking softly and carrying a big stick” with the following successful tactics:
1. Starting Negotiations With Demands: Canada laid out its criteria early in the process. This instantly gave the Canadian negotiators important bargaining chips to potentially throw in at the end to close a deal. Things like the dispute mechanisms and protecting the Dairy industry make great domestic politics, which bolsters your position with the other side, but are “nice to haves” and not truly critical to the success of a final deal.
2. Quietly Racking Up Negotiating Chips: In Canada’s case starting superficially unrelated proceedings, like attacking Boeing’s now demonstrably malicious claim against Bombardier, and starting a WTO claim against the US’ unfair trade practices, gives Canadian negotiators more “chips” to bargain with. Massive deals like NAFTA often include side arrangements to terminate other proceedings.
One of the most contentious issues between Canada and the United States on North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is chapters 11, 19 and 20 the dispute mechanisms. Chapter 19 is the one most are fired up about:
…binational panel of five arbiters, agreed upon by both parties, who will determine whether or not the duties have merit based on U.S. domestic laws.
Source: macleans.ca/opinion/why-naftas-chapter-19-is-worth-fighting-for/
Canada has politely stated that the United States is a massive economy with leadership that have inflated ego’s which are tied directly to high powered, big money, special interests. The combination means that without a dispute mechanism, US politicians will frequently bring unfair claims of NAFTA breaches that Canada will not be able to defend against. Canadian media and politicians (and even some American observers) have gone so far as to call this demand a ‘poison pill‘ using the logic that they know there is no-way Canada will accept a contract without a dispute process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvrzlCFQ8eU
On Monday January 22, 2018, the Trump administration brought in a 30% tax on imported solar panels. This new solar tax will last four years and decrease over time to 15% in its last year.
“Over the last 5 years, nearly 30 American solar manufacturers collapsed; today the President is sending a message that American innovation and manufacturing will not be bullied out of existence without a fight… This is a step forward for this high-tech solar manufacturing industry we pioneered right here in America.”
pressreleasepoint.com/trump-imposes-tariffs-solar-panels
Of the few that have heard of this new tariff, the common misconception is that it is an attempt to punish China from dumping (selling below cost, to kill competitors) panels but the US only imports 10% of its solar panels from China (see the last 30 seconds of the video below). As you can see in the video below, the US solar industry did not ask for and does not want this tariff.
First world governments around the world, including Canada have come down on the side of Net Neutrality (the idea that internet providers can not advance or block one website or stream). The notable exception to this is the United States under President Trump’s appointed FCC leader (and former Verizon executive) Ajit Pai, which has eliminated the Obama era rules protecting an open internet in December 2017.
The Republican / Ajit Pai / Trump argument is that the infrastructure is owned by the internet providers so they should be able to do what they want with it. The opposing view, held by most citizens is that the internet is like electricity or a phone; charge for the service but it is not the providers concern what is or is not connected.
The US Postal Service lost $5.6B in 2016. Today the Liberal Canadian Federal Government announced that it would not reinstate home delivery of mail and all of the pundits cried… on both sides (see video at the bottom of this message). It is predicted that Canada Post will be loosing $700M per year in the near future. These types of numbers are large enough that citizens just don’t understand them but rest assured, in the end, citizens are going to pay those bills, mostly through increased taxes.
There are many idea’s about how to ‘fix’ the Post Office including:
Those are all great ideas and should be pursued, but there are two other idea’s that we have never heard anyone else suggest, and I think most reasonable people will get behind.
You can balance any budget shortfall by cutting costs or expanding revenue:
Most people, even older people do not get ‘real’ mail every day, so why are we paying to have it delivered every day? Why not cut the number of delivery workers in half, delivering mail (to the door or box) on this schedule:
Week 1: Monday Wednesday Friday
Week 2: Tuesday Thursday
With virtually no practical decrease in service, the Post Office would be able to have massive staff cut (160,000 letter carriers the US, and 12,500 letter carriers in Canada) and 33% reduction their small truck fleet.
A rough estimate of the ANNUAL labor savings would be $8.1B (16000 x $51600) in the US and $625M (12500 x $50000) in Canada.