Open Letter to Stephen Harper - Why I Tune Out the Conservative Party of Canada

Dear Prime Minister Mr. Harper.

There are many policy reasons why I do not vote for your party. Traditionally I have voted Liberal, occasionally Conservative or NDP, but now vote Green, for reasons that are beyond the scope of my brief letter to you now.

First and foremost, though, I choose not even to consider the policies of the Conservative Party Of Canada because of the way you practice politics. To me you and your party epitomize the divisive nastiness that has evolved in the past twenty years or so in politics. The Conservatives have lead the way in bringing about this unfortunate change in Canada, emulating the practices of your Republican soul mates to the south. You seek to find wedge issues that divide us, rather than forward thinking visionary points of view that bring people together. You seek power at any cost, rather than consensus. You practice a regressive, "winner take all" type of politics that does a disservice to the majority of Canadians. (Please remember that a majority of Canadians did NOT vote for you in the last election.)

Rather than spend millions of dollars telling me what is wrong with Michael Ignatieff, why don't you mount an extensive campaign that will detail how your policies are better? Why don't you explain to me why I should vote for you, rather than why I should not vote for the other guy? Obviously these questions are rhetorical; I know why you do it. It is for short term electoral gain, as you attempt to score cheap points. It does nothing, however, to advance serious political debate in this country. You seek to exploit and promote the sound bite aspect of our society. It is a sign of desperation when the only way someone feels they can build themselves up is to pull down their opponent. How sad that you must exploit our sense of petty mean spiritedness in an attempt to win.

The only political parties that will receive my vote and support are those that practice listening and consensus building. These are qualities that I find to be seriously lacking in Canadian politics in general and especially in the Conservative Party of Canada. Your party represents to me the worst aspects of old style win at all cost politics. I know, all political parties at times are guilty of this, but you guys have mastered the art. What a sad legacy. It is for this reason that I also support election reform that will take us beyond First Past the Post elections so that every vote counts.

I realize that the chances of you reading this brief letter are slim to none. I don't expect you and your party to change your tactics. But, your office staff can put me in the column of Canadians who do NOT support you, your party, or your tactics. If you change your divisive tactics, I may consider your policies. Until then, I tune you out.

Respectfully,

--
Leonard Poole

Mayor Larry O'Brien on How to Build Consensus

"People who get on side with me win, people who don't get on side with me lose."

The above is a quote from the Mayor of Ottawa, Larry O'Brien. He said this in the final ten minutes of an hour plus long interview conducted by the OPP as they investigated him on charges of bribery and influence peddling. I don't know what, if anything this comment says about his guilt or innocence. However, it does speak to the type of leader he is. Here is someone who thinks the world is divided into winners, those who agree with him, and the losers, those unfortunate souls who may see things differently than he does. So much for the win-win approach to consensus building.

In an Ottawa Citizen editorial titled "Macho Man" Kate Heartfield discusses another quote from this very telling interview. In it, Larry O'Brien describes his first meeting with mayoralty candidate Terry Kilrea, several months prior to the November, 2006 election.

"It was a big dick swinging contest with me telling him I could likely beat him and him telling me he could likely beat me and uh him telling me all the good things that he had going for him in terms of of um lists of of supporters lists of people who might want to vote for him ... and myself I was sort of swinging the dick back saying that I thought I was you know gonna be a better candidate for him because I was a successful businessman who had who was um well respected in the community ..."

Once elected mayor, Larry O'Brien told us he wanted Ottawa to be redefined as a "city with swagger". Is this the type of testosterone fueled "swagger" he was talking about? Is this the type of leadership Ottawa needs to guide it into the 21st Century?

Assigning The True Cost of Transportation

I haven't yet gathered all the facts and figures but I believe it highly unlikely that the taxes and fees remitted to the government as a result of vehicle operation come anywhere close to paying the full cost of the provision of highway infrastructure. I can already hear the vehicle owners screaming as they insist they pay too much already with their gas taxes and licensing fees. Let's do some number crunching on the back of an envelope.

First, let's consider what remittances the vehicle owner makes to the government directly related to their car ownership. I think they can be divided into the following categories:

1. Taxes paid when fuel is purchased.
2. Annual Licensing fees.
3. P.S.T. & G.S.T. paid on operating expenses such as maintenance & insurance.

I am now going to make up some numbers to calculate how much car owners pay. (I know these are ball park numbers.)

1. According to OntarioGasPrices.com Ontarians pay taxes of 14.7c/l plus 5% G.S.T. for gasoline. To make it real simple I will assume that the average owner drives 20,000 kms./yr in a car that uses 7 liters/100kms. and that gas costs one dollar a liter. Such a driver would consume 1400 liters of gas, paying $280 in taxes to the government.
2. Annual license fee of $72.
3. Annual additional operating expenses of $3,000 results in $390 of P.S.T. & G.S.T. payments.

So, it looks like an "average" car user can expect to pay at least $750 in taxes and fees to the government annually, depending on how much they drive. I'm willing to round that up to $1,000 per year and then double it again to $2,000 per year. I then multiply that by the roughly 7,000,000 vehicles on Ontario roads and I come up with a total vehicle owner contribution of $14 billion toward the cost of providing and maintaining our road network. Does that come even close to paying for unlimited access to tens of thousands of kilometers of roads across this province? What does it cost to build and maintain all these highways and byways? In Ottawa alone, we pay tens of millions of dollars every winter just to clear the snow.

Now, I also know that I haven't accounted for the vastly increased taxes paid by the trucking industry. However, they should pay more, as they are responsible for most of the heavy pounding our roads take.

Calculating the expenses involved in providing and maintaining our extensive public road network is a massive undertaking. First, we need to know what the province as well as every municipality is spending annually on development and maintenance of their roads. We also need to know the cost of policing these roads versus the revenue collected from fines. It would also be valuable to know the total number of lane kilometers in the province.

My goal in collecting this information would be to determine the total cost of providing the Ontario road network and compare it with the total amount of money paid by all drivers for this network. I understand that the network provides a benefit to all Ontarians, whether one drives or not, but I do believe that by far the greatest benefit is accrued to drivers. I simply want them to pay an amount commensurate with the service provided to them.

With this information in hand I would propose that we start to re-allocate the benefits more equitably. I am now going to again to the back of my envelope to paint a broad picture. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that after all the numbers are calculated, that the taxpayer provided subsidy for the use of the road network amounts to $1,000 per year. This is a subsidy not received by non car users. If automobile users are getting $1,000 transportation subsidy, every citizen should have access to the same benefit. The question is: How do you rectify this imbalance?

I have decided to engage in some "blue sky" thinking to get us to where I think we should be. First, I propose the development of a province wide "Transportation Card" which would replace the current driver's license. If you are a driver, it would include information about the class of vehicle you are permitted to drive. It also, however, could be used as a transportation pass for any transit system in the province, including inter city bus and train travel. As every citizen requires transport, every citizen would be entitled to receive a card. Public policy would determine the total amount of taxpayer provided subsidy to the transportation system. This would include the cost of providing a road network for all users as well as the provision of publicly funded mass transit systems. The per capita value would then be embedded annually in each card distributed to Ontarians.

Public policy would need to establish a hierarchy of what form of transportation receives the highest subsidy. I advocate that the most efficient and sustainable forms of transportation should receive the highest subsidy, such as walking, cycling and mass transit, with ultimately no subsidy being provided to individual automobile users. You are free to use your car, but expect to pay the full cost for such convenience. To develop a user pay system I would want gasoline taxes and licensing fees to move toward paying for the full cost of the road network.

The ultimate idea of the"Transportation Card" is that every citizen would be able to use the subsidy embedded in the card for the type of transportation they wanted. If the car driver wanted to use the entire $1,000 subsidy to pay for gasoline or licensing fees, go right ahead. Swipe your card at the pump until the money is used. Alternatively, it could be used for a bus pass or intercity travel. Use it to buy a bicycle. Spend it on whatever type of transportation service you want. However, the more efficient and ecologically friendly your transportation choice is, the greater the subsidy from the taxpayer, and the farther you will be able to travel.

I know I am in the extreme minority on this issue. The vast majority of people I know are wedded to their vehicles. I can hear the laughter already. It is hard for most people to imagine being without a car. The point is, though, that one day personal automobiles will be a thing of the past. The question is: What is the best replacement for such an inefficient system?

Another criticism would be that this is another form of "social engineering" as I am having the government try to shape individual transportation choices. But, don't we do that already by providing a taxpayer subsidy that promotes automobile use?

The idea of having the taxpayer pay for the infrastructure of an auto-centric road network was based on the twentieth century assumption that ultimately everyone would own (or at least want to own) a car. With that in mind it was a no brainer to keep subsidizing this system. We are beginning, slowly but surely, to understand that this is not sustainable into the future. We need to start thinking about travel in entirely different ways if we are to respond effectively to the twin threats of peak oil and climate change.

Jeff Rubin on the Effects of Peak Oil

"We shouldn’t be looking at oil prices as the effect of the recession. They are the cause." - The Globe and Mail:

One often hears disparaging comments about those that suggest that there will ever be any substantive "peak oil" effect on how we live. They are portrayed as radical doomsayers. Those expressing concern about the impact of climate change are often discounted in a similar fashion.

The question I put to those who toss aside such concerns is this: Can we afford to be wrong about this?

Consider the following numbers:

• There are 6.7 billion people on this planet
• The world population has more than doubled since 1950, predicted to reach at least 9 billion by 2050
  
• Since 1980 the world daily consumption of oil has increased by more than a third
• Even with oil reaching more than $140/bbl in July 2008, the oil industry was unable to increase production to match demand
  

As everyone will tell you, whether one accepts the concept of peak oil or not, there is plenty of oil still in the ground. The fundamental question is not how much supply is ultimately available but what will be the cost of extracting that oil at a flow rate that our economy, as currently construed, demands? Are you willing to bet the farm on the prospect that the oil industry can continue to supply an expanding population with sufficient quantities of fossil fuel energy at a price it is able to pay?

It will cost ever increasing amounts of money, time and energy to extract the remaining oil and bring it to market. It is an accepted fact that the oil we have extracted to date has been the easy stuff to get out of the ground. Although there is a lot more to exploit, it will become increasingly more costly to do so. If we want the oil, we will find ourselves paying a lot more for it over time.

Of course, as the price does inevitably rise, there will be those who will start to change behaviour and demand less. As the cost of commuting inexorably rises, people will attempt to find ways to reduce their costs through a variety of means. Some people will switch to transit or look at carpooling or other alternatives. Others will move closer to work. Such changes take time, but they will happen.

This reduction in demand will have a negative impact on the price of oil. If it has a big enough effect, some people will continue to maintain their energy consumption at previous levels. That is why I expect we will continue to have a roller coaster ride of undulating pricing in oil. When the price drops, there will be many proclaiming yet again that the "peakists" are simply doomsayers who are wrong yet again. When it starts swinging back up, while the "peakists" will be saying "I told you so", their opponents will simply blame the oil companies for profiteering. Over the long term though, year after year, decade after decade, the price will be going up and up and up. The only thing that will keep prices down is if the entire world collectively consumes less.

As Jeff Rubin points out, we are currently mired in one of the deepest world wide recessions in more than sixty years, yet oil prices are more than $60/bbl. If the economy ever does start to rev up, he predicts it will be beaten down again by rapidly increasing oil prices as supply constraints kick in. It is not a matter of if, but when.

Attack Ads - A Desperate Attempt to Solidify a Shrinking Base

Attack Ads as Schoolyard Tripe - Macleans.ca

Numerous editorials have commented on the negative ad campaign of the Conservative Party of Canada initiated a few days ago against Michael Ignatieff. None that I have read have viewed them favourably. This may be the best kind publicity the Liberals could hope for in these current economic times: free.

Many of us would like to think that such negativity would backfire, but often, it does not. Liberals and Conservatives alike have used such tactics at least since the 80's to varying degrees of success. This may explain why the Conservatives launched this most recent volley. "It worked before", may be their thinking.

This time may be different. Such a strategy is much more problematic when used from a position of weakness. Using such attacks when your support is slipping has the unfortunate side effect of shining a light on your desperation. Such a characteristic is not usually something we look for in a leader and likely repels more voters than it attracts.

Following the Money - Following the Energy

The oil we eat: Following the food chain back to Iraq—By Richard Manning (Harper's Magazine)

So many things I take for granted, like the food I eat, and the air I breathe. Then, Richard Manning points out how profoundly humanity has distorted the natural rhythms of this precious biosphere we call earth.

He starts with the observations of James Prescott Joule

(who) discovered in the nineteenth century (that) there is only so much energy. You can change it from motion to heat, from heat to light, but there will never be more of it and there will never be less of it. The conservation of energy is not an option, it is a fact. This is the first law of thermodynamics.

He then points out to us that:

Special as we humans are, we get no exemptions from the rules. All animals eat plants or eat animals that eat plants. This is the food chain, and pulling it is the unique ability of plants to turn sunlight into stored energy in the form of carbohydrates, the basic fuel of all animals. Solar-powered photosynthesis is the only way to make this fuel. There is no alternative to plant energy, just as there is no alternative to oxygen. The results of taking away our plant energy may not be as sudden as cutting off oxygen, but they are as sure...

(W)e humans, a single species among millions, consume about 40 percent of Earth's primary productivity, 40 percent of all there is. This simple number may explain why the current extinction rate is 1,000 times that which existed before human domination of the planet. We 6 billion have simply stolen the food, the rich among us a lot more than others.

Richard then leads us through an interesting history of the distinctly human development of farming, and what it has done to the earth, as we have harvested the energy of seeds.

When we say the soil is rich, it is not a metaphor. It is as rich in energy as an oil well. A prairie converts that energy to flowers and roots and stems, which in turn pass back into the ground as dead organic matter. The layers of topsoil build up into a rich repository of energy, a bank. A farm field appropriates that energy, puts it into seeds we can eat. Much of the energy moves from the earth to the rings of fat around our necks and waists. And much of the energy is simply wasted, a trail of dollars billowing from the burglar's satchel.

Farming has allowed humans to exploit the planet like no other species. We accept no limits to such activity. Limits, however, are about to be imposed on us, and it won't be the first time. Plato provides one of the earliest known records of the imposition of humanity on the planet.

What now remains of the formerly rich land is like the skeleton of a sick man. . . . Formerly, many of the mountains were arable. The plains that were full of rich soil are now marshes. Hills that were once covered with forests and produced abundant pasture now produce only food for bees. Once the land was enriched by yearly rains, which were not lost, as they are now, by flowing from the bare land into the sea. The soil was deep, it absorbed and kept the water in loamy soil, and the water that soaked into the hills fed springs and running streams everywhere. Now the abandoned shrines at spots where formerly there were springs attest that our description of the land is true.

Humans stroll about this planet with a profound sense of entitlement. Blessed with seemingly unmatched intellectual capacity we simultaneously fail to comprehend our collective destruction of the only home we have: earth. Like lemmings headed for a cliff.