Close But Not Quite

This cartoon by Brian McFadden is mostly on target:

But the problem with agriculture is not so much the demands of the east to eat but of the power of the ag industry in California.  California politicians are not going to be shy about annoying the rest of the country (might get them more votes), but they are shy about confronting big Ag in the state.  Otherwise, the reaction to the water problem would definitely involve restrictions on the farmers.

Anyhow, fun cartoon that is 95% of the way there instead of the usual 110%.

Environmental Xenophobia

I have not been following the writings/speeches of David Suzuki as I do not study environmental politics. However, he seems to have crossed over to my territory: xenophobia.  He criticized Canadian immigration policy as "we plunder southern countries by depriving them of future leaders," which might sound somewhat reasonable (more in a second).  However, he also said "Canada is full, too!  Although it's the second largest country in the world, our useful area has been reduced."  That second part is so chock full of stupid that it makes the rest of his statement quite tainted.

Yes, if the advanced countries of the world set up immigration policies intended to lure the best and brightest to Canada, then Canada is doing less developed countries a disservice.  One can criticize immigration policies for having negative impacts on other countries.  I think the issue is more complex than that, as the possibility that the best (smartest, most trained, most talented, whatever) might leave can serve as a brake on governments from pursuing bad policies.  If they cannot exit, a key restraint on bad (or worse) policy policy is gone.  The article that discusses this also mentions remittances--that the immigrants tend to send income back to the homeland.  Indeed, remittances have become a major source of income in less developed countries. Anyhow, still, one can debate the pro's and con's of immigration policies that might entice the skilled to leave the countries that need those skills.

One cannot really debate that there is heaps of room in Canada.  It is one of the most underpopulated countries on the planet: 2nd largest country with 33 million people.  Even if one were to exclude from the math the various territories that are not so inhabited or inhabitable, Canada is a big country with lots of space.  Sure, Toronto and Vancouver are facing significant pressures because of the flow of immigrants, but there are plenty of smaller urban areas in Canada that have room for immigrants.  The country has heaps of fresh water and energy and food.  The immigrants are mostly coming from places that lack fresh water and energy and food.  Which is better for the global environment?  Keeping people where there is scarcity?  Or letting some to move to where there is abundance?

I am not an expert on the environment, but claims like what Suzuki has made suggests that he is not either.  Out of space?  Canada?  Looks like intolerance of foreigners to me... and that would be xenophobia.  Perhaps Suzuki is not a xenophobe, perhaps he just sucks at math. 

Sci Fi meets the Classics

Great xkcd:

The Resource Curse Curse

I am not a huge fan of the tar sands industry, so I don't want to be seen as a defender of it when I criticize an anti-tar sands op ed. But I cannot help but point out some huge problems with this piece by Thomas Homer-Dixon.   THD has crossed over into the real world from the academic one with books that capture more eyeballs than most.  However, he takes a contested concept, the resource curse, and utterly breaks it when talking about Canada. 

How so?

• as others have tweeted, the oil industry is not that big a part of Canada's economy.  Really. 

• it violates basic social science--unless you factor in time travel, causes MUST precede outcomes.  But much of the stuff in the piece happened before the big oil boom of late
• Whatever Canada's position as an innovative country relative to the rest, most of that is not news.  Whether that is the brain drain that the Canada Research Chair program sought to reverse by hiring me (oops) or the tax structure or whatever, it is not a recent phenomenon.
• The Conservatives won a big majority without gaining a majority in seats?  Um, this happens all the time in first past the post electoral systems, which Canada has had forever

•  Yes, the Conservatives are nasty to their opponents, as the piece notes "environmental and other radical groups."  But remember how members of the party accused those opposed to new internet regulations as being pro-Child p-ngraphy?  This is a party that takes extreme us vs them kinds of spins on things, and it has nothing to do with oil. 

There are a lot of problems with tar sands, but one might be more convincing if one focuses on the stuff that is really going on due to the tar sands versus that which is just part and parcel of Canadian politics and of the Conservative Party.  

I am not worried that a negative US decision will destroy US-Canadian relations, but I am also not worried that continued exploitation of the tar sands will lead Canada into becoming Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or oil state x.

The Ties That Maim?

In my first book, The Ties That Divide, I argued that states will support the secessionist movements with which their key constituents share ethnic ties.  While this seems obvious and un-counter-intuitive, This ran directly counter to the conventional wisdom, which was that states would refrain from such activity if they were vulnerable to separatism.  While contemporary political science pushes scholars to consider all of the observable implications of their theories, I never considered the environmental consequences of pandering to key constituents. 

Alas, the sharks are feeling the consequences.  The Conservative Party of Canada, which help to exemplify the logic of running scared (always seeking votes even with a comfortable majority), is sucking up to elderly Chinese Canadians by opposing legislation that would have banned the import of shark fins.  Shark fins are harvested by slicing the fins off of live sharks which are then sent back into the water to die, leading to the potential extinction of sharks.  While it sounds strange to be "pro-shark," the environmental move here is to protect the sharks.  The Conservatives, whose environmental record is, of course, pretty sketchy, is not protecting a shark fishing industry but pandering to a segment of the Canadian electorate. 

The good news is that the right wing party of Canada understands better than the right wing party of the U.S. that its future lies in more than just white folks.  The bad news is that Canadians will still be part of the market driving the slaughter of sharks.  Usually, I would suggest that if sharks were cute, they would be saved (dolphins), but then again, this is a country that fiercely protects its right to beat seals.  So, um, never mind.

This story also shows that there is more than one way to pander to an ethnically defined constituency.  Supporting kin in the homeland is one way.  Supporting their cultural practices in the host country is another.  Woo hoo for ethnic politics?

Let the Seal Beating Continue!

I tease my students about Canada's seal industry.  It provides an excellent example of an industry that faces either trade restraints or environmental restrictions, depending on your point of view.  Good thing that the Chinese do not care how cute seals are, as the Canadians have a found a new outlet to replace the European market.

The funny thing is that Canadians get very defensive about the seal industry, even getting pretty hostile to Paul McCartney while he was married to Heather Mills.  He is ok again here now that he got a divorce. 

Anyhow, perhaps this will lessen the frost on EU-CA relations with the seal industry focused elsewhere.

Green is Simple But Is It Good?

Took me about three weeks to realize that bottles of water are no longer stocked at McGill.  The student association apparently voted against bottled water in the student union (named after William Shatner who never gave any cash for such a privilege).  I was not teaching last winter, so I don't know when this decision took effect.  I guess the idea is that bottles from purchased water are bad for the environment.  Yet, I guess the bottles from coke, powerade, and other colored drinks are ok for the environment as they are still available.  Yep, McGill discriminates against beverages of non-color.  It is better to drink various forms of sugar water in plastic bottles than plain water in plastic bottles.  I understand the impetus here, and so students may decide to carry water bottles around (although we have plenty of stories about the non-trivial health consequences of various kinds of bottles).  Or they may buy more soda, pop, soda pop, or coke, depending on what part of North America you are from.

Anyhow, I did tend to re-use the bottles, but now find myself having to buy powerade (since sodas make me burp in the middle of lecture, not a good thing) or apple juice when I forget to bring a bottle to carry water.  I guess this helps us prepare for the great Zombie wars, but as an environmental measure, it seems that symbolism cuts against health as sugared beverages will be consumed in greater quantities.

NSF Funds Good Work that Is Politically Relevant!?

Oh my.  Very clear, sharp op-ed piece in NYT today by Joe Krosnick who argues that his survey is better than those done by Pew and Gallup for ascertaining attitudes about global warming/climate change and proposed government regulation. 

Given last fall's controversy about NSF funding, I find it ironic that this project, funded by the NSF, demonstrates two things:

• that social science research can do stuff better than the polling folks (something explicitly questioned way back when): 

"Questions in other polls that sought to tap respondents’ personal beliefs about the existence and causes of warming violated two of the cardinal rules of good survey question design: ask about only one thing at a time, and choose language that makes it easy for respondents to understand and answer each question."

•  and that the findings are often going to be politically inconvenient.   Krosnick finds that Americans actually do think the globe is warming and they would like to see more regulation of the production of things that expend energy (cars, appliances, homes, office buildings).

What a great conclusion:

When senators vote on emissions limits on Thursday, there is one other number they might want to keep in mind: 72 percent of Americans think that most business leaders do not want the federal government to take steps to stop global warming. A vote to eliminate greenhouse gas regulation is likely to be perceived by the nation as a vote for industry, and against the will of the people.

Just shows how good work can antagonize the NSF-haters by being politically relevant.  Ooops.

And for a somewhat more critical take, see Drezner.

Climate Change

I don't follow the climate change stuff closely.  Perhaps I am just too pessimistic, or just overwhelmed by everything else (ethnic conflict, civil-military relations, Zombies).

Anyhow, here is a link to Gore on the recent stuff.

Some thoughts on the former VP's responses:

• That the Senate is the big challenge--where interest groups/lobbyists hold sway, but that the House of Rep is actually ok.  This is very interesting, and makes sense since the rules of the Senate empower individuals far more, creating far more vetopoints, making any kind of significant reform hard.  And we have seen this with health care.
• "We need to create a lot of jobs that can't be outsource."  This is an incredibly interesting claim--that much of the greening of the economy would require local work, not just importing wind turbines, but retrofitting buildings and so forth.
• On the recent scandal that has raised questions about the data: "To paraphrase Shakespeare, it's sound and fury signifying nothing."  I wish he had been strong enough to be himself in 2000--he might have won decisively.  
• Al is super-frustrated: "If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now"

The challenge is that the people who know they are going to be hurt by change are powerful and certain, and the people who would be helped by change are not so power and very much uncertain.  As always, Machiavelli is right.

•  

Flying Fish? Not a Good Idea

Interesting piece--argues that the various debates about which fish is best misses the biggest thing we could change.  Fresh fish are much worse for the environment than frozen since they are flown, and that has a bigger impact than anything else. 

Of course, what I really need to know is the environmental impact of twinkies.

Corporations Are Good for the Environment?

In an interesting op-ed at the NY Times, the always controversial Jared Diamond suggests that some firms are actually making a significant effort to improve the environment and that it makes competitive sense.

Let’s start with Wal-Mart. Obviously, a business can save money by finding ways to spend less while maintaining sales. This is what Wal-Mart did with fuel costs, which the company reduced by $26 million per year simply by changing the way it managed its enormous truck fleet. Instead of running a truck’s engine all night to heat or cool the cab during mandatory 10-hour rest stops, the company installed small auxiliary power units to do the job. In addition to lowering fuel costs, the move eliminated the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to taking 18,300 passenger vehicles off the road.

 The piece also does a nice job busting myths about the economic disincentives to engage in sustainable practices.

I have come to the belief that the world will adjust to the shortage of energy supplies by conserving and coming up with alternatives because companies will see it in their interest to do so--so that they can remain competitive and become even more so.  On the other hand, I think climate change itself, well, we are not going to do so well, as it will require cooperation, extensive cooperation that is not that easy to come by.  This week's meetings in Copenhagen are illustrative, as Canada will face much abuse for its tar sands exploitation.