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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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.
Monday, April 28, 2008
On a more personal front
Saturday night was fun, if bittersweet. Goodbyes often are. On Wednesday, I move to Edmonton - first time I've ever been there - new job, working on a new apartment, finding new friends, and all those other wonderful things. I'm very, very excited to be moving - more accurately, I'm excited to be working at something that isn't a call centre again, excited to be starting fresh in a new city again. Then we get to the bittersweet side of things - Saturday night was my goodbye party. Surrounded by by some pretty good friends, and realizing that I don't know when I'm going to see them again - kind of an unpleasant thought. Then again, I've moved enough times in the past year to have done this before, but it seems to get harder every time rather than easier.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Changes in immigration policy
Hidden within the pages of a 136 page budget bill that the Federal Conservatives are looking to pass through parliament are some amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that will give the Immigration Minister more power to decide who gets to stay. These changes, which have been put forward by the government as an attempt to ease the backlog of prospective immigrants to this country, have drawn concern from opposition MPs.
The brunt of the changes put forward in the proposed legislation will "Give the immigration minister the authority to instruct immigration officers to set limits on what types of immigrants — "by category or otherwise" — can have their applications processed each year," and "Require an otherwise ineligible person who wants to immigrate on humanitarian grounds to already be in Canada for their application to be processed," according to cbcnews.ca.
Under existing legislation, the government must go through the immigration applications in the order they are recieved. While this is a "fair" policy, it neglects the most important question that needs to be asked regarding immigration policy - namely "Why do we bring in immigrants - their benefit, or ours?". The proposed changes would allow the Minister to give preferential treatment to certain "categories" of immigrants at their discretion - namely allowing for qualified/skilled workers to "jump the line" so to speak, and make an expedited trip into the country, where their skills could be put to good use.
Personally, I can see a degree of merit to this argument - the fact is that the government of Canada has as it's primary responsibility to enact policy that is in the best interests of the country - and giving preferential treatment to a skilled workforce that is interested in taking their skills, their training, and their families to Canada would seem to be more in our countries interests.
So aside from giving them a preferential place on the waitlist to get here, how else can we encourage skilled, educated immigrants to make their way to this country? This question calls to mind the story of one young family who came over from west Africa. The father was a doctor, trained at Kenya's national university, and an experienced surgeon. The family now lives somewhere in New Jersey and he is practicing as a lab technician because we wouldn't recognize his credentials as being worth anything. This story isn't uncommon, and it also doesn't make sense. To be fair, we do need to be careful whether or not we recognize someone's credentials - just because they're recognized in one country, doesn't mean that they should be recognized in ours. That being said, we also need to be, I think, a little bit more pragmatic. We make our own med students undergo residency, we make our own engineers go through the EIT program, and we make our tradesmen go through an apprenticeship before we allow them to ply their trade on their own, and perhaps it would be reasonable to have our skilled/trained immigrant workforce undergo a similar system. This would allow them to do what they're trained to do - which would give them far more cause to stay and would also give those skills and that training to our own workforce. Furthermore, it would enable us to ensure that their training is up to standards that are expected here. Overall, this seems like a reasonable solution for the good of our country, and for the good of the skilled and educated people who want to come and help us make it better.
More: Picking winners and losers in the immigration race ([here] New Brunswick)
Liberals urged to fight immigration proposals (Globe and Mail)
The brunt of the changes put forward in the proposed legislation will "Give the immigration minister the authority to instruct immigration officers to set limits on what types of immigrants — "by category or otherwise" — can have their applications processed each year," and "Require an otherwise ineligible person who wants to immigrate on humanitarian grounds to already be in Canada for their application to be processed," according to cbcnews.ca.
Under existing legislation, the government must go through the immigration applications in the order they are recieved. While this is a "fair" policy, it neglects the most important question that needs to be asked regarding immigration policy - namely "Why do we bring in immigrants - their benefit, or ours?". The proposed changes would allow the Minister to give preferential treatment to certain "categories" of immigrants at their discretion - namely allowing for qualified/skilled workers to "jump the line" so to speak, and make an expedited trip into the country, where their skills could be put to good use.
Personally, I can see a degree of merit to this argument - the fact is that the government of Canada has as it's primary responsibility to enact policy that is in the best interests of the country - and giving preferential treatment to a skilled workforce that is interested in taking their skills, their training, and their families to Canada would seem to be more in our countries interests.
So aside from giving them a preferential place on the waitlist to get here, how else can we encourage skilled, educated immigrants to make their way to this country? This question calls to mind the story of one young family who came over from west Africa. The father was a doctor, trained at Kenya's national university, and an experienced surgeon. The family now lives somewhere in New Jersey and he is practicing as a lab technician because we wouldn't recognize his credentials as being worth anything. This story isn't uncommon, and it also doesn't make sense. To be fair, we do need to be careful whether or not we recognize someone's credentials - just because they're recognized in one country, doesn't mean that they should be recognized in ours. That being said, we also need to be, I think, a little bit more pragmatic. We make our own med students undergo residency, we make our own engineers go through the EIT program, and we make our tradesmen go through an apprenticeship before we allow them to ply their trade on their own, and perhaps it would be reasonable to have our skilled/trained immigrant workforce undergo a similar system. This would allow them to do what they're trained to do - which would give them far more cause to stay and would also give those skills and that training to our own workforce. Furthermore, it would enable us to ensure that their training is up to standards that are expected here. Overall, this seems like a reasonable solution for the good of our country, and for the good of the skilled and educated people who want to come and help us make it better.
More: Picking winners and losers in the immigration race ([here] New Brunswick)
Liberals urged to fight immigration proposals (Globe and Mail)
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Copy Protection for Canada...
One of my friends sent me an email today with a link to a few articles pertaining to Industry Minister Jim Prentice's new proposed copyright legislation. This legislation, it is feared, will mirror the American's infamous DMCA in how it seeks to address issues such as online file-sharing, circumvention of digital copy-protection, and circumvention devices, amongst others.
I have to admit, as a consumer, and as a Conservative, the implications of such a legislation concern me greatly. First let me state that I believe that it is only fair that the creators of media (movies, music, TV shows, etc) be paid for their work. I'm not even opposed to giving the recording industry their cut - everyone has to make a living. The question remains, however, "at what cost"?
The first and most significant is the question of the right to privacy. Under the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person physically in Canada is guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and security of the person". While I do not have constitutional jurisprudence, I have always firmly believed that the concept of individual privacy to be inherent to individual security of person. In order for legislation against such activities to be enforced, the ability to gather personal information about who uses copyrighted media and how it is used is necessary. Specifically, that information must be gathered before any suspicion of illegal activity even exists. To me, this concern alone is sufficient cause to quash any attempts to copy the DMCA here in Canada.
The other interesting aspect of this issue is that the recording industry (per say) is actually divided on the issue - with many artists firmly OPPOSED to any kind of legislation such as this. The reasons are several - first of all are concerns as to how such a law will affect the relationship between the band and their fans. For an example of one of the more extreme cases, one need only refer to the 2000 lawsuit against Napster launched by Metallica - and the resulting backlash from fans. The other concern is one of publicity. Strange though it may seem, there are some bands that I've never heard of. There are bands that my friends and I combined, have never heard of. There are even - heaven forbid - bands that my friends and I combined have never even met anyone who over the course of their entire lifetimes will have heard of. Some of those bands will most assuredly, be atrocious. Some of those bands will, almost equally assuredly, be fantastic. The plethora of music, readily available for download somewhere online gives those previously mentioned bands (good and bad) a wider audience for their work to be heard. To give you a good case in point, I would likely never have even heard of any of my current three favorite bands without the benefit of being able to download their music - and for the record, I also now own a MINIMUM of 5 of the bands CDs each.
For these reasons, amongst others, I am strongly opposed to copying the American's DMCA in this country, and instead favour a different solution. A Canadian solution - one that actually protects the rights of the residents of our nation. A conservative solution - one that espouses the values of a free and open marketplace, lacking in governmental intervention. So what solution do I believe in? I believe that the indiviidual right to privacy supercides the rights of copyright holders to engage in invasive measures to protect their intellectual property. I believe that the study undertaken by two students of the Department of Management at the University of London that suggest a positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing might actually be true. I also believe that internet downloading of media is the future of the industry, and should be encouraged by the industry as well as the artists. Or perhaps the recording industry is concerned about being cut out of the market by the artists, and the fans who support them. I believe that maybe, just maybe, the federal government should sit this one out.
Note: for a copy of the previously mentioned study, click
here
For further reading on the subject, any or all of the following links will suffice
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copyright-canada.html
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/11/19/copyright-law.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2419/125/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080311-canadian-mp-dont-use-wipo-as-excuse-for-canadian-dmca.html
I have to admit, as a consumer, and as a Conservative, the implications of such a legislation concern me greatly. First let me state that I believe that it is only fair that the creators of media (movies, music, TV shows, etc) be paid for their work. I'm not even opposed to giving the recording industry their cut - everyone has to make a living. The question remains, however, "at what cost"?
The first and most significant is the question of the right to privacy. Under the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, every person physically in Canada is guaranteed the "right to life, liberty, and security of the person". While I do not have constitutional jurisprudence, I have always firmly believed that the concept of individual privacy to be inherent to individual security of person. In order for legislation against such activities to be enforced, the ability to gather personal information about who uses copyrighted media and how it is used is necessary. Specifically, that information must be gathered before any suspicion of illegal activity even exists. To me, this concern alone is sufficient cause to quash any attempts to copy the DMCA here in Canada.
The other interesting aspect of this issue is that the recording industry (per say) is actually divided on the issue - with many artists firmly OPPOSED to any kind of legislation such as this. The reasons are several - first of all are concerns as to how such a law will affect the relationship between the band and their fans. For an example of one of the more extreme cases, one need only refer to the 2000 lawsuit against Napster launched by Metallica - and the resulting backlash from fans. The other concern is one of publicity. Strange though it may seem, there are some bands that I've never heard of. There are bands that my friends and I combined, have never heard of. There are even - heaven forbid - bands that my friends and I combined have never even met anyone who over the course of their entire lifetimes will have heard of. Some of those bands will most assuredly, be atrocious. Some of those bands will, almost equally assuredly, be fantastic. The plethora of music, readily available for download somewhere online gives those previously mentioned bands (good and bad) a wider audience for their work to be heard. To give you a good case in point, I would likely never have even heard of any of my current three favorite bands without the benefit of being able to download their music - and for the record, I also now own a MINIMUM of 5 of the bands CDs each.
For these reasons, amongst others, I am strongly opposed to copying the American's DMCA in this country, and instead favour a different solution. A Canadian solution - one that actually protects the rights of the residents of our nation. A conservative solution - one that espouses the values of a free and open marketplace, lacking in governmental intervention. So what solution do I believe in? I believe that the indiviidual right to privacy supercides the rights of copyright holders to engage in invasive measures to protect their intellectual property. I believe that the study undertaken by two students of the Department of Management at the University of London that suggest a positive relationship between P2P file sharing and CD purchasing might actually be true. I also believe that internet downloading of media is the future of the industry, and should be encouraged by the industry as well as the artists. Or perhaps the recording industry is concerned about being cut out of the market by the artists, and the fans who support them. I believe that maybe, just maybe, the federal government should sit this one out.
Note: for a copy of the previously mentioned study, click
here
For further reading on the subject, any or all of the following links will suffice
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copyright-canada.html
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2007/11/19/copyright-law.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2419/125/
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080311-canadian-mp-dont-use-wipo-as-excuse-for-canadian-dmca.html
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Gas prices and the environment
For those of you who were wondering, I was doing some brainstorming on the subject and hit "Publish Post" by mistake. Oh well, there goes the element of surprise.
People here and, frankly, everywhere else have been complaining about high gas prices for years. To be honest, it's a valid complaint. More recently, of course, have been the concerns surrounding the so-called "greenhouse gasses", and the various effects of them on the environment. I think that there may be some ideas that would improve both situations simultaneously. Some of these ideas are very short term - essentially "quick-fixes". Some of these ideas may take more time. Either way, I'd welcome any input.
First, let's look at the economics of the subject. Gas prices at the pumps are determined by four factors: the market cost of crude oil; refining costs; taxes; and profit margins for the various people who are involved in getting the oil from the ground, and into your gas tank. Some aspects of this cost can't be directly affected through government action. Some aspects can - namely the taxes, and the market cost. The market costs can be achieved through influencing the supply/demand curve - namely reduce the demand, at the same time as increasing the available supply.
Step one: increase the overall available supply. Canada is in an interesting strategic situation, as having the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the majority of those reserves are in the Alberta oil sands - with a cost of production of up to $40/barrel. In comparison to the production costs of $10/barrel or less in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other conventional drilling locations, this is pretty high. That said, with the market cost currently sitting around $100/barrel (pre-refining cost), there's enough of a difference to increase production somewhat and maintain a hugely profitable operation. Furthermore, the increased production should lead to an increase in jobs in the market. The other factor in the market cost of oil are political factors - essentially, issues taking place overseas - most notably in Venezuela and the Arabian peninsula - are impacting the cost that we're being charged for that oil. Ramping up production in our own reserves, and simultaneously increasing refining capabilities here would enable us to not be reliant on imported oil - thus making us invulnerable to the political factors that have caused the issues in the oil market, and, long term, would enable us to compete directly with OPEC in that market - and, potentially, profit immensely in so doing.
Step two: reduce domestic oil consumption, which serves the dual purpose of keeping prices lower, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which, regardless of your position on global warming specifically, definitely improves the quality of our air. To reduce our total oil consumption, there are two factors to consider: energy production, and transportation. Energy production is a bit of a tricky question - ultimately, the Federal government has limited control over the energy policies of the provinces (constitutionally), so there is no sure policy that can be set. That said, encouraging the provincial governments to (long term) convert their existing coal-and-oil burning electric plants to nuclear and/or hydro-electric (where the capacity exists) could be decidedly helpful. Obviously, this change-over will cost tax dollars, however will also create large numbers of reasonably well-paying jobs - leading to an increase in overall tax revenue both in the form of income taxes, and the sales taxes on the increase in retail spending.
The question of transportation has a few other factors. Ultimately, people need to get from point A to point B, and they generally need to be able to do so with a certain degree of speed and comfort. Generally, people prefer to use cars. Buses are uncomfortable, and trains are generally expensive. It's common knowledge that different cars, different engines, and different grades of gasoline offer different levels of fuel efficiency. Increasing the total fuel efficiency of vehicles, overall, will reduce the total gas consumed, and also reduce the exhaust levels (per litre), thus reducing emissions as well. Furthermore, roughly 1/3 of the cost of gas at the pumps is in the form of taxes. People have always had the option to choose to buy higher grade or lower grade gasoline, and most people use the lower grade because it's cheaper in per litre cost. Perhaps we should change the tax structure on gasoline to give people a reason to buy the higher grade (and therefore more efficient and cleaner burning) gasoline.
Anyhow, those are some ideas I've been thinking about. I honestly don't know if they'll work or not - this specifically isn't one of my areas of specialty. So if anyone has any comments (positive or negative), some ideas on how to make my ideas better, or some ideas of your own that I may not have here, please let me know - I'm always happy to listen.
People here and, frankly, everywhere else have been complaining about high gas prices for years. To be honest, it's a valid complaint. More recently, of course, have been the concerns surrounding the so-called "greenhouse gasses", and the various effects of them on the environment. I think that there may be some ideas that would improve both situations simultaneously. Some of these ideas are very short term - essentially "quick-fixes". Some of these ideas may take more time. Either way, I'd welcome any input.
First, let's look at the economics of the subject. Gas prices at the pumps are determined by four factors: the market cost of crude oil; refining costs; taxes; and profit margins for the various people who are involved in getting the oil from the ground, and into your gas tank. Some aspects of this cost can't be directly affected through government action. Some aspects can - namely the taxes, and the market cost. The market costs can be achieved through influencing the supply/demand curve - namely reduce the demand, at the same time as increasing the available supply.
Step one: increase the overall available supply. Canada is in an interesting strategic situation, as having the second largest oil reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the majority of those reserves are in the Alberta oil sands - with a cost of production of up to $40/barrel. In comparison to the production costs of $10/barrel or less in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and other conventional drilling locations, this is pretty high. That said, with the market cost currently sitting around $100/barrel (pre-refining cost), there's enough of a difference to increase production somewhat and maintain a hugely profitable operation. Furthermore, the increased production should lead to an increase in jobs in the market. The other factor in the market cost of oil are political factors - essentially, issues taking place overseas - most notably in Venezuela and the Arabian peninsula - are impacting the cost that we're being charged for that oil. Ramping up production in our own reserves, and simultaneously increasing refining capabilities here would enable us to not be reliant on imported oil - thus making us invulnerable to the political factors that have caused the issues in the oil market, and, long term, would enable us to compete directly with OPEC in that market - and, potentially, profit immensely in so doing.
Step two: reduce domestic oil consumption, which serves the dual purpose of keeping prices lower, and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions which, regardless of your position on global warming specifically, definitely improves the quality of our air. To reduce our total oil consumption, there are two factors to consider: energy production, and transportation. Energy production is a bit of a tricky question - ultimately, the Federal government has limited control over the energy policies of the provinces (constitutionally), so there is no sure policy that can be set. That said, encouraging the provincial governments to (long term) convert their existing coal-and-oil burning electric plants to nuclear and/or hydro-electric (where the capacity exists) could be decidedly helpful. Obviously, this change-over will cost tax dollars, however will also create large numbers of reasonably well-paying jobs - leading to an increase in overall tax revenue both in the form of income taxes, and the sales taxes on the increase in retail spending.
The question of transportation has a few other factors. Ultimately, people need to get from point A to point B, and they generally need to be able to do so with a certain degree of speed and comfort. Generally, people prefer to use cars. Buses are uncomfortable, and trains are generally expensive. It's common knowledge that different cars, different engines, and different grades of gasoline offer different levels of fuel efficiency. Increasing the total fuel efficiency of vehicles, overall, will reduce the total gas consumed, and also reduce the exhaust levels (per litre), thus reducing emissions as well. Furthermore, roughly 1/3 of the cost of gas at the pumps is in the form of taxes. People have always had the option to choose to buy higher grade or lower grade gasoline, and most people use the lower grade because it's cheaper in per litre cost. Perhaps we should change the tax structure on gasoline to give people a reason to buy the higher grade (and therefore more efficient and cleaner burning) gasoline.
Anyhow, those are some ideas I've been thinking about. I honestly don't know if they'll work or not - this specifically isn't one of my areas of specialty. So if anyone has any comments (positive or negative), some ideas on how to make my ideas better, or some ideas of your own that I may not have here, please let me know - I'm always happy to listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
