So I'm finally updating my blog with the start of my Peru trip. For the record this is not a vacation, it is, at the moment, a work trip - so how much "vacation-y" stuff shows up is still up for debate. But, let's start with the Peruvian basics.
1) In answer to any questions about Lima - the airport is an airport. The quality of an airport is inversely proportional to time spent travelling and the time spent in the airport. Lima's airport leaves, according to that formula, much to be desired. On the plus side - Starbucks doesn't close. On the downside, there isn't anyplace convenient to grab a nap on an extended layover.
2) Don't ask about the jungle - I haven't seen it. I'm working in a medium-sized city called Ilo. Ilo exists as a small oasis with the Pacific Ocean on one side, and the desert on the other. I will hopefully get to see jungle in my time here, and will post pictures accordingly.
3) The exchange rate here is NOT especially favourable (only 3:1) - however unless you happen to be going to Starbucks, food, drink, and lodging are all cheap - making it a pretty easy place to go on a budget and have a good time, if you're up for an adventure.
4) As a corollary to number three - be prepared to diet when you get home. The food here is plentiful, cheap (REALLY cheap), and excellent. Be warned, if you're not a seafood person, you could be in for a shock (and possible allergic reaction), as octopus, squid, crawfish, shrimp, clams, and lobster (we think) are the name of the game as far as local restaurants are concerned.
5) Make an effort to learn some Spanish before coming to visit - make everyone's lives easier. Markets (Markados) are a good place to practice your Spanish - some basic vocabulary required.
As it stands, I've done little that's actually noteworthy here other than work - which I do on a daily basis, my usual 8-10 hours a day. When that changes, there will be more stories. Photos will follow as they actually get taken.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
A slight change
So this blog will, for the next few weeks (starting sometime on or around August 19th) take on a new look for a few weeks. As a few of you know, I will be leaving for a 3 week contract in Peru that day. As all of you can probably guess, I've never been there, and have every intention of seeing as much of the country as I can when I'm not working. Pictures, stories, and anything else that I figure will be interesting will be posted - whenever I get around to it. So keep reading - it'll be one hell of a ride.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Something that scares the shit out of even me
From the end of the World War II, the threat of nuclear arms has hung like a cloud over top of an uneasy world, the only thread of hope being the idea that none of the states actually possessing these weapons would actually risk the total annihilation not only of their own state, but of the entire globe, by using them. Unfortunately, as the number of states who have joined that club increased, the world has also been faced with certain, less - er... - rational players. Two specific players, however, have shown themselves to be decidedly less rational than others: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.
We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.
So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?
In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.
In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.
So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?
This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.
In light of recent progress of the Six-party Talks, we can look at the North Koreans in a somewhat new light, assignificant progress has been made in disarming them. While there are still potential challenges ahead, the future does, at least present a vestige of hope for peace on this front.
We then move to the other side of the nuclear coin - the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the past 20 years, amid protests that their only nuclear objectives are for civilian energy purposes, the Iranians have been moving slowly and inexorably towards the attainment of a nuclear bomb. Constant pressure from the international community has been met with abject refusal to comply with sanctions, or with deals that Iran is party to. For an extensive work on the subject, see "The Iran Threat: President Ahmedinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis", by Alireza Jafarzadeh. Today, in an article published in the Globe and Mail, we can see that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran has moved dramatically forward, with the production of 6,000 centrifuges for the production of enriched uranium, with the eventual goal of possessing 54,000 centrifuges.
So between the unquestionable pursuit of nuclear weapons, the decided antipathy to the United States and the rest of the western nations, and the well-known Iranian support of such terrorist organizations as Hezbollah amongst others, we are faced with three, all-important questions. First - would a nuclear armed Iran, as a state, use the threat or actual use of nuclear arms in conflict (de facto, or diplomatic) with another state? Second - would Iran, as a state sponsor of a number of terrorist organizations, give said organizations access to their nuclear arsenal? Third - if the answer to either of these questions is "yes", what should the west do to prevent this nightmare scenario from ever taking place?
In answer to the first question - we need to consider the actions of the Iranian government in the past. The easiest answer to this question comes with current threats of the Iranian government to "explode the Middle East" if the Americans, Israelis, or anyone else for that matter, decides to step in and remove the potential for a nuclear armed Iran through conventional means. While the use of armed force in self-defense is a legitimate response to an armed attack against your state - the threat of armed force against the national assets of not just the country that attacked yours, but also of your neighbours speaks to an uncommon willingness to protect a weapons program that is designed to do only one thing - wipe another country off the map. This willingness to harm even non-combatants in conflict speaks of nothing less than an unquestionably strong desire to attain such weapons - such a desire speaks only of a willingness to use them to achieve their own ends.
In answer to the second question, we need to consider the primary target of most of the Iranian-sponsored terrorists attacks, and the Iranian policy towards that state: namely, Israel. Ultimately, Iran's policy on Israel is that [Israel] does not have the right to exist, in any borders. The function of nuclear arms is singular - to wipe an offending state off the map. While there is no guarantee, obviously, that Iran would give it's sponsored terrorists nuclear technology, there is certainly no reason to believe that they wouldn't. In the case of such a threat as this, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and assume the answer to be "yes" until proven otherwise.
So we've answered the first two questions - now comes the hard part: what do we do about it. Unfortunately, Iran's threat to take down the Middle East oil supply to the United States and the west is very real, and must be taken seriously. So too, must the eventual threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. Furthermore, we can see pretty clearly that diplomatic effots have failed. The only option left is military. So how does one engage military operations against a rogue state, holding economic catastrophe over the heads of those who must act, without levelling the nation and turning it to dust?
This last question, I will not give a direct answer to - I have no interest in posing the question of declaring war, or committing acts of war against a sovereign state in a public forum online. Suffice it to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Iran must be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons at all costs, and that the only method, at this time, that would be effective in that prevention is through the use of armed force. The west knows what it necessary, and the time to act is now.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A better idea
So somehow, we need to combat rising energy costs, encourage economic growth, and encourage our industries to go green (or at very least, green-ER), and we need to do all of this pretty much simultaneously. After lambasting Stephane Dion's proposed carbon tax as rather a bad idea for reasons pertaining to the first two, I promised an answer. It's time to deliver on that.
To begin, let's look at why bother going green in out industries. Bluntly, there are two reasons - the first is international pressure from a number of parties, including the European Union and, more recently, the United States to go green in our industries, particularily as pertains our exploitation of the oilsands.
The second reason has more to do with domestic quality of living - ultimately, whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether you're especially concerned about the question of global climate change or not (and opinions vary), anyone who's see the skyline around Hamilton, Toronto, and many of our other heavy industrial/commercial centres has seen the brown haze that slowly descends upon the respective cities. Ultimately, the quality of our air and water supplies, notably in heavily industrialized areas, is sinking badly. This in turn has a negative impact on our health - again, something to be avoided.
Thirdly, rising energy costs are taking their toll on all sectors of our economy and directly affecting our cost of living across the board. Reduction in our use of fossil fuels would help to reduce our overall costs at this point, presenting yet another benefit.
dro
How do we do this, and still keep a profit? First off, let's do something about taxes that was suggested by my friend Jason in reply to my last post. Let's give tax cuts to greener companies - perhaps even going so far as to give a tax credit to companies who show a proportional reduction in overall greenhouse gas output - as well as improving funding for research into green and non-fossil fuel based energy sources. Further, as I've said before, we need to put forward a dramatic shift in our national energy production platform from coal/oil/gas fired power plants towards a higher reliance on hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Ultimately, the international demand for fossil fuels will, eventually, reduce as the first world nations move towards a greener industrial future, and as emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil will inevitably do the same. At that point, the market cost of oil will make it no longer profitable to work the oil sands - costing jobs, money, and potentially causing many of our skilled workers to leave the country for greener pastures. That said, that time is not upon us yet. As we move to eliminate our country's dependance on fossil fuels, we need to recognize that many of these emerging economies are both oil-dependant, and that their needs will continue to increase for quite some time. We need to work to meet those needs, and we need to do so for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is the simple economic question. We ramp up production of our oil and start selling it - irrelevant of where it goes - and we're going to make a profit. The companies that are building multi-billion dollar plants will continue to build, expand, and employ, and petro-dollars will roll in from around the globe - producing increased taxation revenue from abroad. Further, as I said, there will eventually come a time when world dependance on oil will end - at that point, the oil sands will go from being worth potentially billions of dollars, to being worth a fraction of that. Quite frankly, it would make more sense to pull as much of the stuff out of the ground and make as much money on it as we can while it is still profitable to do so. Thirdly is a question of foreign affairs. Right now, many players in OPEC are, at best ambivalent towards and at worst downright antagonistic to western interests. Short version to a long story is that petrodollars in Canada's pocket that are taken away from the pockets of some of these other nations are a decidedly beneficial thing from our Foreign Minister's office's perspective.
Anyhow, short version of this is that we move towards a greener Canada through a combination of R&D, tax incentives, and a shift in energy policy at the same time as engaging in aggressive exploitation of our oil reserves to use for export. Just because we're trying to go green doesn't mean that we have to force everyone else to, and certainly doesn't mean that we can't still try to force a profit off the fact that everyone else isn't going to just yet.
To begin, let's look at why bother going green in out industries. Bluntly, there are two reasons - the first is international pressure from a number of parties, including the European Union and, more recently, the United States to go green in our industries, particularily as pertains our exploitation of the oilsands.
The second reason has more to do with domestic quality of living - ultimately, whether you believe in global warming or not, and whether you're especially concerned about the question of global climate change or not (and opinions vary), anyone who's see the skyline around Hamilton, Toronto, and many of our other heavy industrial/commercial centres has seen the brown haze that slowly descends upon the respective cities. Ultimately, the quality of our air and water supplies, notably in heavily industrialized areas, is sinking badly. This in turn has a negative impact on our health - again, something to be avoided.
Thirdly, rising energy costs are taking their toll on all sectors of our economy and directly affecting our cost of living across the board. Reduction in our use of fossil fuels would help to reduce our overall costs at this point, presenting yet another benefit.
dro
How do we do this, and still keep a profit? First off, let's do something about taxes that was suggested by my friend Jason in reply to my last post. Let's give tax cuts to greener companies - perhaps even going so far as to give a tax credit to companies who show a proportional reduction in overall greenhouse gas output - as well as improving funding for research into green and non-fossil fuel based energy sources. Further, as I've said before, we need to put forward a dramatic shift in our national energy production platform from coal/oil/gas fired power plants towards a higher reliance on hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Ultimately, the international demand for fossil fuels will, eventually, reduce as the first world nations move towards a greener industrial future, and as emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil will inevitably do the same. At that point, the market cost of oil will make it no longer profitable to work the oil sands - costing jobs, money, and potentially causing many of our skilled workers to leave the country for greener pastures. That said, that time is not upon us yet. As we move to eliminate our country's dependance on fossil fuels, we need to recognize that many of these emerging economies are both oil-dependant, and that their needs will continue to increase for quite some time. We need to work to meet those needs, and we need to do so for a number of reasons.
First and foremost is the simple economic question. We ramp up production of our oil and start selling it - irrelevant of where it goes - and we're going to make a profit. The companies that are building multi-billion dollar plants will continue to build, expand, and employ, and petro-dollars will roll in from around the globe - producing increased taxation revenue from abroad. Further, as I said, there will eventually come a time when world dependance on oil will end - at that point, the oil sands will go from being worth potentially billions of dollars, to being worth a fraction of that. Quite frankly, it would make more sense to pull as much of the stuff out of the ground and make as much money on it as we can while it is still profitable to do so. Thirdly is a question of foreign affairs. Right now, many players in OPEC are, at best ambivalent towards and at worst downright antagonistic to western interests. Short version to a long story is that petrodollars in Canada's pocket that are taken away from the pockets of some of these other nations are a decidedly beneficial thing from our Foreign Minister's office's perspective.
Anyhow, short version of this is that we move towards a greener Canada through a combination of R&D, tax incentives, and a shift in energy policy at the same time as engaging in aggressive exploitation of our oil reserves to use for export. Just because we're trying to go green doesn't mean that we have to force everyone else to, and certainly doesn't mean that we can't still try to force a profit off the fact that everyone else isn't going to just yet.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
A bad idea, couched in good rhetoric, is still a bad idea
So as another election looks to be unfolding around the corner, the Liberal Party of Canada has unleashed yet another bad idea - it's actually kind of funny how often this happens - and has done (as usual) an impeccable job of hiding behind truly impressive (and, at times staggering) verbiage. Verbiage designed to defend why, exactly, we should pay more tax and suffer an increased cost of living when energy prices are skyrocketing, and our economy is facing a significant risk as a result of the effects of the weak American Dollar on Canadian manufacturing, commercial interests, and tourism. Verbiage designed to couch the risks in enacting such a plan behind words like "daring" and "bold" - when words like "foolhardy" and "stupid" seem more apt to me.
So, before I start to take apart the Liberals new taxation strategy for you, let's get a couple of things underway. First of all, we're going to take as given that the climate change issue has been, once and for all, settled. We're going to take as given that greenhouse gases are causing untold amounts of damage to the environment and that we need to (as a globe) reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further damage. We're taking these as givens not because they're necessarily true, but because they're necessary premises to be able to reasonably debate this policy shift. There are lots of debates around the internet with varying degrees of scientific complexity on this question that you can browse at your leisure.
Second: we are going to assume that what Liberal leader Stephane Dion has said he will do if elected (in this context) is what he will ACTUALLY do. Obviously, it's impossible to debate the merits of a politicians promise if you assume that all or part of the promise is a lie.
Third and lastly - I have read the official Liberal Party documentation on their new policy. Yes, this is mostly rhetoric, but it does outline the basics of the new plan. I suggest you do the same by clicking here.
So let's consider "the plan". Essentially, how the Green Shift works (according to Liberal propagandists) is to put a noticable, measurable, and increasing direct tax on carbon emissions through the taxation of fossil fuels, beginning in year 1 with a $10/tonne tax on carbon emissions and raising steadily to $40/tonne by the end of the fourth year. (see p. 28 of previous link) This additional tax will be directly returned to Canadians and Canadian business through a series of tax cuts. (see p. 36 for total dollar value of "tax cuts and other benefits", and see p. 42 for a rough budget showing the taxation structure change to be "revenue neutral").
The purpose of this new taxation strategy is "shift Canada's taxation strategy away from income and towards pollution in a revenue-neutral way", and to put a price on carbon to "spur industry to pollute less". This would create "a new demand in Canada for green products and technologies". The oncoming taxation reductions would seek to reduce basic tax rates of the three lowest income brackets by ten, five, and four precent, respectively, with the particular goal "to help low-income Canadians". As well, the new plan seeks to "accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts", "accelerate the capital cost allowance rates for investments in green technologies", and make the Science, Research & Experimental Development Tax credit 25% refundable - making it more attractive to business to invest in green technology in the present.
Actually, when I present it this way, it really looks, on the surface, like a decent idea. So why am I sitting here criticizing it? Unfortunately, the Liberal party policymakers are very good at writing, and very bad at mathematics. The basic considerations show that the Green Shift is indeed revenue neutral - in the short term, from the government's perspective. So let's look at the problems.
There are two issues with this platform that raise alarms with me - the first is the concept of increasing taxation on a decreasing resource (aka: pollution). Unlike other federal "sin taxes," the proposed new carbon tax will be specifically designed to drastically reduce overall carbon emissions - the source of the tax. At the same time, income taxes will be being cut to make the plan, in the short term, revenue neutral. However, as the sum of our carbon emissions as a nation reduces, our government's overall revenue will reduce. This change in revenue source will, when the policy is extended from 4 years and continuing to a longer cycle, no longer be neutral. This shift in taxation policy is a multi-billion dollar deficit in the making. Unfortunately, that has long been the platform of Liberal governments in this country - spend now, change now, and we'll leave the consequences to someone else. In this case, those consequences will be left to the Canadian taxpayer - the very working and middle classes that this platform shift will allegedly "help".
The second issue that I see is the term "revenue neutral". I ask "revenue neutral FOR WHOM?" Perhaps what Liberal policymakers neglect to remember (or comment to) is that there is more to calculating a Canadian's cost of living than simply taxation increases. What the Liberal's attempts to buy our countrymen off with simple tax cuts fail to appreciate is the fact that, definitionally, the proposed taxation shift from income to pollution (essentially from income to production) is, of necessity, inflationary. Unfortunately, as much as this new taxation strategy is designed to shift our economy towards a greener future, economies are large, bulky, and notoriously slow to change direction. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a new, green economy in this country. In the time it takes for this proposed "new economy" to be forged, every stage of the production chain - raw materials exploitation, processing, to final manufacturing and sales - in this country will see an increase in taxation. The cost of those taxes will, in every case, be filtered down to the consumer, resulting in an increased cost of living for the average working Canadian. As this cost filters downwards, there will be a significant push for higher wages amongst the working and middle classes to make up for this increase in cost of living - which will further increase the cost of domestic goods in this country and repeat the process - until a newer, much more expensive status quo is reached. This calculus will actually be slightly higher when directly applied to the fossil-fuel industry itself (ie: gas costs, aviation/transport costs, etc.) Save the taxpayers money? On taxes certainly, but a lower taxation rate is a high price to pay for a hugely increased cost of living.
This new taxation strategy may be politically expedient - designed to appeal to a population where "green" is the new black, but where an understanding of the economic ramifications of such a plan are sorely misunderstood. I can only hope that, come election day, the people of this country band together to reject good politics in the name of a sound, actionable strategy, a strategy that sees investment in green technology and a shift towards a greener future in this country that doesn't come at such a high cost to taxpayers and to our economy. Check back after this weekend and I will present a different strategy, designed to meet tomorrow's need of a greener Canada with todays need to counteract rising energy prices, a too strong dollar, and rising costs of living for the average Canadian taxpayer. I'll present a strategy that makes sense.
So, before I start to take apart the Liberals new taxation strategy for you, let's get a couple of things underway. First of all, we're going to take as given that the climate change issue has been, once and for all, settled. We're going to take as given that greenhouse gases are causing untold amounts of damage to the environment and that we need to (as a globe) reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to prevent further damage. We're taking these as givens not because they're necessarily true, but because they're necessary premises to be able to reasonably debate this policy shift. There are lots of debates around the internet with varying degrees of scientific complexity on this question that you can browse at your leisure.
Second: we are going to assume that what Liberal leader Stephane Dion has said he will do if elected (in this context) is what he will ACTUALLY do. Obviously, it's impossible to debate the merits of a politicians promise if you assume that all or part of the promise is a lie.
Third and lastly - I have read the official Liberal Party documentation on their new policy. Yes, this is mostly rhetoric, but it does outline the basics of the new plan. I suggest you do the same by clicking here.
So let's consider "the plan". Essentially, how the Green Shift works (according to Liberal propagandists) is to put a noticable, measurable, and increasing direct tax on carbon emissions through the taxation of fossil fuels, beginning in year 1 with a $10/tonne tax on carbon emissions and raising steadily to $40/tonne by the end of the fourth year. (see p. 28 of previous link) This additional tax will be directly returned to Canadians and Canadian business through a series of tax cuts. (see p. 36 for total dollar value of "tax cuts and other benefits", and see p. 42 for a rough budget showing the taxation structure change to be "revenue neutral").
The purpose of this new taxation strategy is "shift Canada's taxation strategy away from income and towards pollution in a revenue-neutral way", and to put a price on carbon to "spur industry to pollute less". This would create "a new demand in Canada for green products and technologies". The oncoming taxation reductions would seek to reduce basic tax rates of the three lowest income brackets by ten, five, and four precent, respectively, with the particular goal "to help low-income Canadians". As well, the new plan seeks to "accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts", "accelerate the capital cost allowance rates for investments in green technologies", and make the Science, Research & Experimental Development Tax credit 25% refundable - making it more attractive to business to invest in green technology in the present.
Actually, when I present it this way, it really looks, on the surface, like a decent idea. So why am I sitting here criticizing it? Unfortunately, the Liberal party policymakers are very good at writing, and very bad at mathematics. The basic considerations show that the Green Shift is indeed revenue neutral - in the short term, from the government's perspective. So let's look at the problems.
There are two issues with this platform that raise alarms with me - the first is the concept of increasing taxation on a decreasing resource (aka: pollution). Unlike other federal "sin taxes," the proposed new carbon tax will be specifically designed to drastically reduce overall carbon emissions - the source of the tax. At the same time, income taxes will be being cut to make the plan, in the short term, revenue neutral. However, as the sum of our carbon emissions as a nation reduces, our government's overall revenue will reduce. This change in revenue source will, when the policy is extended from 4 years and continuing to a longer cycle, no longer be neutral. This shift in taxation policy is a multi-billion dollar deficit in the making. Unfortunately, that has long been the platform of Liberal governments in this country - spend now, change now, and we'll leave the consequences to someone else. In this case, those consequences will be left to the Canadian taxpayer - the very working and middle classes that this platform shift will allegedly "help".
The second issue that I see is the term "revenue neutral". I ask "revenue neutral FOR WHOM?" Perhaps what Liberal policymakers neglect to remember (or comment to) is that there is more to calculating a Canadian's cost of living than simply taxation increases. What the Liberal's attempts to buy our countrymen off with simple tax cuts fail to appreciate is the fact that, definitionally, the proposed taxation shift from income to pollution (essentially from income to production) is, of necessity, inflationary. Unfortunately, as much as this new taxation strategy is designed to shift our economy towards a greener future, economies are large, bulky, and notoriously slow to change direction. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will a new, green economy in this country. In the time it takes for this proposed "new economy" to be forged, every stage of the production chain - raw materials exploitation, processing, to final manufacturing and sales - in this country will see an increase in taxation. The cost of those taxes will, in every case, be filtered down to the consumer, resulting in an increased cost of living for the average working Canadian. As this cost filters downwards, there will be a significant push for higher wages amongst the working and middle classes to make up for this increase in cost of living - which will further increase the cost of domestic goods in this country and repeat the process - until a newer, much more expensive status quo is reached. This calculus will actually be slightly higher when directly applied to the fossil-fuel industry itself (ie: gas costs, aviation/transport costs, etc.) Save the taxpayers money? On taxes certainly, but a lower taxation rate is a high price to pay for a hugely increased cost of living.
This new taxation strategy may be politically expedient - designed to appeal to a population where "green" is the new black, but where an understanding of the economic ramifications of such a plan are sorely misunderstood. I can only hope that, come election day, the people of this country band together to reject good politics in the name of a sound, actionable strategy, a strategy that sees investment in green technology and a shift towards a greener future in this country that doesn't come at such a high cost to taxpayers and to our economy. Check back after this weekend and I will present a different strategy, designed to meet tomorrow's need of a greener Canada with todays need to counteract rising energy prices, a too strong dollar, and rising costs of living for the average Canadian taxpayer. I'll present a strategy that makes sense.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
A rant about ducks...
So after seeing the country in an uproar about a few dead ducks (seriously, it isn't like we haven't got lots of them here), and hearing people complain about the environmental impact of the exploitation of Alberta's oilsands, I was able to get a first hand look.
First, let me give the nod to the environmentalists - yes, it's true. the complete destruction of the locales around the major plants in the region is absolutely staggering. It looks like a number of large smokestacks rising out of a desert - seriously.
But how many of you have actually been there, have actually seen the extents (and limits) of the so-called problem? Odds are, not very many. The fact is that it isn't that bad. Yes, the areas where the plants ARE are in a terrible environmental state. That said, the remainder of the areas AROUND where the plants are still exist as near pristine wilderness. Trees are alive and growing, as is wildlife.
So, to the doomsday prophets, I ask only that you take a few minutes and consider this - it's limited. It's VERY limited - the areas around the plants (once you get outside of the "desert" are still pristine wilderness. So, unless you've actually got something useful to say, please stick to hugging trees and stay the hell away from our economy.
First, let me give the nod to the environmentalists - yes, it's true. the complete destruction of the locales around the major plants in the region is absolutely staggering. It looks like a number of large smokestacks rising out of a desert - seriously.
But how many of you have actually been there, have actually seen the extents (and limits) of the so-called problem? Odds are, not very many. The fact is that it isn't that bad. Yes, the areas where the plants ARE are in a terrible environmental state. That said, the remainder of the areas AROUND where the plants are still exist as near pristine wilderness. Trees are alive and growing, as is wildlife.
So, to the doomsday prophets, I ask only that you take a few minutes and consider this - it's limited. It's VERY limited - the areas around the plants (once you get outside of the "desert" are still pristine wilderness. So, unless you've actually got something useful to say, please stick to hugging trees and stay the hell away from our economy.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
On War - my version
So one of the big deals in the last few years has been the issue of war in Iraq. It's been on the minds and tongues of just about anyone with a degree of political awareness, and a whole bunch of people who have none but like to hear themselves speak anyway. More recently, a discussion with a friend of mine in the army brought up the idea of being able to wage war through robotics via the click of a mouse, so I got to thinking about what was wrong with how we wage war.
I am not an anti-war advocate. Actually, I'm more of a pro-war advocate - but an advocate of smart war. War fought to win, and war fought to minimize casualties - both on our side, and on the opponents side, and war fought for reasonable, measurable policy objectives.
So what's wrong with how we wage war, and how can we make wars more efficient, and less costly in materiel and human life, while still protecting the policy objectives that we wage war to protect or enforce in the first place?
I think to answer that question that we need to look at a history of war - not a history of tactics and strategy, but a history of what war is. From time immemorial, wars have been fought between opposing armies on a battlefield of one form or another - from the trenches of Vimy Ridge or Paschendale, the jungles of Korea or Vietnam, to the desert of Afghanistan or Iraq, and even in the cities in Iraq, Kosovo, and even, to a certain extent, Ireland. These wars are won through the capture, death, or forced surrender of the opposing army - of necessity costing thousands of lives, but furthering the political will of the leadership of those armies. Essentially war is fought with a battlefield mentality that has remained unchanged over millenia, however has adapted itself as weapons modernize, and tactics with them.
So what options exist that would allow military leadership to escape the idea of a "battlefield" mentality? The one I would like to look at is a concept I will call a "covert ops" army. So what is such a force, and how would one operate? To answer this question, let's look at the current covert operations teams that exist. Using the Americans as an example, their special forces exist as the Navy SEALS, the Army Rangers, the Green Berets, and the Airborne units - in all respects troops exquisitely trained in covert warfare, and supported as needed by the main branches of the army. These forces are generally used in counter-terror operations, as well as covert/intelligence ops abroad. So how does one fight a war with a force made up of these well trained, well equipped foot soldiers?
How does one kill a snake? Remove the head, and the snake quickly dies. Do the same with an army or a government, and the government, like the snake, quickly dies. Let's further this concept by looking at modern war, but considering a "covert ops war" on the ground. We keep, as our standing army, an elite unit comprising soldiers trained and equipped for covert infiltration, execution, and extraction. Rather than sending our tanks, infantry, artillery, etc in to fight and destroy our enemies armour, infantry, artillery, etc, would we not be better to use the covers of silence and darkness to take down the command structure of the opposing forces - both in the field and at the office? Why not carry that a couple of steps further and use the same strategy to take the leadership of the belligerant power? Ultimately, this change in overall wartime strategy should lead to both a reduced financial cost for a state at war, as well as a significant reduction in loss of life - civillian and military - for all parties involved.
In the end, this strategy comes through two concepts not unknown to combat operations - speed and stealth. Victory through a covert strategy requires a number of factors. First, the operations against the opposition have to go of within a short period of time - striking down the odd person here or there will leave the opposition too much time to find a replacement for that person or those few people. Taking down a larger number of targets in a limited time frame allows for a much smaller response time for the opposition, allowing both for greater disruption to their military operations, as well as a greater chance of successful escape of your own operatives. Second, a sufficient number of operations actually have to succeed to sufficiently destabilize the nations government and military structure to not allow them the option of continuing their belligerance.
Sun Tzu spoke of the value of surprise and stealth many times throughout his treatise - this is, I believe, the logical conclusion of that.
I am not an anti-war advocate. Actually, I'm more of a pro-war advocate - but an advocate of smart war. War fought to win, and war fought to minimize casualties - both on our side, and on the opponents side, and war fought for reasonable, measurable policy objectives.
So what's wrong with how we wage war, and how can we make wars more efficient, and less costly in materiel and human life, while still protecting the policy objectives that we wage war to protect or enforce in the first place?
I think to answer that question that we need to look at a history of war - not a history of tactics and strategy, but a history of what war is. From time immemorial, wars have been fought between opposing armies on a battlefield of one form or another - from the trenches of Vimy Ridge or Paschendale, the jungles of Korea or Vietnam, to the desert of Afghanistan or Iraq, and even in the cities in Iraq, Kosovo, and even, to a certain extent, Ireland. These wars are won through the capture, death, or forced surrender of the opposing army - of necessity costing thousands of lives, but furthering the political will of the leadership of those armies. Essentially war is fought with a battlefield mentality that has remained unchanged over millenia, however has adapted itself as weapons modernize, and tactics with them.
So what options exist that would allow military leadership to escape the idea of a "battlefield" mentality? The one I would like to look at is a concept I will call a "covert ops" army. So what is such a force, and how would one operate? To answer this question, let's look at the current covert operations teams that exist. Using the Americans as an example, their special forces exist as the Navy SEALS, the Army Rangers, the Green Berets, and the Airborne units - in all respects troops exquisitely trained in covert warfare, and supported as needed by the main branches of the army. These forces are generally used in counter-terror operations, as well as covert/intelligence ops abroad. So how does one fight a war with a force made up of these well trained, well equipped foot soldiers?
How does one kill a snake? Remove the head, and the snake quickly dies. Do the same with an army or a government, and the government, like the snake, quickly dies. Let's further this concept by looking at modern war, but considering a "covert ops war" on the ground. We keep, as our standing army, an elite unit comprising soldiers trained and equipped for covert infiltration, execution, and extraction. Rather than sending our tanks, infantry, artillery, etc in to fight and destroy our enemies armour, infantry, artillery, etc, would we not be better to use the covers of silence and darkness to take down the command structure of the opposing forces - both in the field and at the office? Why not carry that a couple of steps further and use the same strategy to take the leadership of the belligerant power? Ultimately, this change in overall wartime strategy should lead to both a reduced financial cost for a state at war, as well as a significant reduction in loss of life - civillian and military - for all parties involved.
In the end, this strategy comes through two concepts not unknown to combat operations - speed and stealth. Victory through a covert strategy requires a number of factors. First, the operations against the opposition have to go of within a short period of time - striking down the odd person here or there will leave the opposition too much time to find a replacement for that person or those few people. Taking down a larger number of targets in a limited time frame allows for a much smaller response time for the opposition, allowing both for greater disruption to their military operations, as well as a greater chance of successful escape of your own operatives. Second, a sufficient number of operations actually have to succeed to sufficiently destabilize the nations government and military structure to not allow them the option of continuing their belligerance.
Sun Tzu spoke of the value of surprise and stealth many times throughout his treatise - this is, I believe, the logical conclusion of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
