Don Cherry

There isn’t a person in Canada who doesn’t have an opinion on Don Cherry. Some like him, some not. I do. Not because he knew so much about the game or dressed a little funny, but because his character was reminiscent of the past. For years, hockey watchers turned up the volume whenever loudmouth came on the air, even if they didn’t like the guy. Why? Because he had something to say. And that’s what I’ll miss. 

Having grown up in a mostly immigrant family, I’ve never been offended by anyone’s speech. Oversimplifications and speaking your mind were always in vogue because we didn’t know any other way. We weren’t fancy people who knew how to mind their p’s and q’s. So in light of Don’s dismissal, I’d like to make two points: one on immigrants and another about free speech.

Russell Peters

A basic rule in comedy is you can’t pick on the weak. Audiences don’t like it and it’s technically a cheap way to get a laugh. Women, immigrants, and the disabled were off limits unless you did it perfectly. You could easily talk about masturbation and getting stoned every day, but stay away from anything controversial. That was until Russell.

Russell Peters opened the door to talking about immigrants and coined the Canadian version of the term, white people. For years he struggled until one day he struck. His brand of immigrant-based humour exploded and Russell went on to perform all over the world. But how? What happened? What changed?

What changed is that people from Asia no longer considered themselves weak. That’s why they showed up in droves to laugh at themselves. And white people couldn’t get over it. They didn’t understand how you could joke about idiosyncrasies without being condescending. And that a poke at obscure habits was just silly fun. It blew them away. 

Enter the new world, all immigrants are not weak. And the immigrant community, namely brown people from Mississauga, could have handled these remarks without any help from you. As a matter of fact, it’s disrespectful to insinuate people from India and Pakistan don’t have the ability to fight their own fight. They don’t need white people for protection. (For example, one councillor from Brampton openly tweeted against the remarks but didn’t feel Cherry should have been fired. He wanted another go at him—like the time Don ended up wearing a tutu.) 

Rednecks

Over the past 30 years, this man could have been fired for numerous causes. These comments over wearing a poppy are the least of his offenses. He’s called out French Canadian players along with the Swedes for, shall we say, their hockey habits. But years later he called Vincent Lecavalier along with Jerome Iginla the top two players in the world. And more recently says Frederik Andersen is the best goalie in the league. (Of course, Frederik is from Sweden.)

Now did Don make these statements out of political correctness or did his new views come from prolonged observation just like any other redneck. I say personal experience, which is another reason why this should have been left alone. When we quelch certain fires too soon they don’t get a chance to naturally burn out. And that’s how most rednecks learn. Time, conversation, and then cultural osmosis. 

We ended this conversation early, which was a mistake because it would have been a beauty.

Summary

The action by Sportsnet was premature and not in a million years would I have done it. They knew full well what he was before signing and this incident didn’t break the camel’s back. He’s done worse and if you listen to the whole tape, this was kinda minor—not racist. They could have exited him gracefully. At the end of his contract, which should have been signed annually. 

But I’m not worried about Don. He’ll be fine. (Lost, but fine.) I’m worried about me. I often blurt out nonsense without thinking. Then someone pushes back and I reconsider my thoughts. It’s a natural way of learning. You empty your garbage from time-to-time just to reload. “Oh, but you’re not on TV.” Yes I am. We all are. Every text, Facebook, and twit is being recorded and can be used against you. And if people decide to make it an unforgiving world, I’m susceptible to losing my reputation just like everyone else. 

That is, unless white people are there to protect me.

The Wall

This week, PBS Frontline released a documentary on immigration in America. Other than the eerie background music, it’s pretty good. I also watched the supporting interviews, which the program was made from, and see three sides to the story. Here’s what you need to know.

Current regulations in America make it easy for outsiders to enter the country. Couple that with instability in many Central American countries and organized coyote caravans selling destination packages to the US, and the problem is getting worse. So let’s start with what’s on the public’s mind. Most people believe in a two-part solution:

  • Secure the border
  • Provide amnesty for those already here, namely dreamers

Sounds simple but neither political party was interested before 2016. After Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama in 2012, the Republicans performed an autopsy on the federal election. One recommendation was to appeal to Spanish voters by agreeing with a pathway to citizenship for those who’ve illegally entered the country. Hardliners disagreed. 

Those opposed say amnesty only provides incentive for more people to come. And then point to Ronald Reagan’s bill in 1986 that granted amnesty to 3 million undocumented workers but didn’t secure the border. They call it an emotional fix with no long term solution. And say neither political party is willing to address the issue because big business loves the cheap labour and Democrats figure these people will eventually vote for them.

Trump likes the idea of dreamers—and was willing to go with just that—but hardliners caught him before signing. They say, you’re not giving away amnesty before securing the wall. And that’s where we sit.

Note: For more on the issue, check Wiki. Here’s a link to the documentary. And to watch all supporting interviews click here.

Greta

Remember the chart from the article on Carbon Tax? It showed where energy comes from and how it’s used by every household. Well, there’s an additional source of emissions that you ought to know about—it comes from everything you buy.

Whether it’s footwear, televisions, or the cups in your cupboard, everything which sustains you comes from some kind of business. And business uses the exact same chart to make their goods. So if you buy a lot of things, you put up a lot of carbon. That’s what young Greta was trying to say.

Every sweater you own comes with a carbon price tag. As a matter of fact, it’s even bigger than what you directly cause.

  • Direct (23%) – the electricity, gas, and heating material you use on a daily basis.
  • Consumption (77%) – the electricity, gas, and heating material used to generate and transport everything you buy.

Greta was talking about overall consumption and asked us to buy less. It’s the dirty little secret of climate change. The one politicians never tell you because it involves shrinking economics. CBC’s Rosemary Barton pushed Elisabeth May on the issue and she said, “Our plan doesn’t ask people to give up anything.” (Start at the 21-minute mark.)

Conclusion

When climate change first hit the scene many were emotional about it. “We have to save the planet, we have to save the planet.” But now warning about the problem isn’t good enough, practical people want to see a plan. And like it or not, until we green the grid and move to electric motors, it involves consumption. Politicians don’t tell you this because consumption is what drives the workplace. So if everyone bought less, GDP would be less. Not welcome in a world full of debt. 

Remember, the economy works like this: raw material comes from Mother Nature and we add labour to bring it to you. So the furniture in your home used to be a tree, and the chainsaw used to cut it was also made from elements. Every step of the process causes carbon. From mining, to farming, to manufacturing, to distribution—everything puts up emissions. So if you want to be an activist and reduce global warming, over the next 20-30 years you’ll have to consume less.

That’s what a 16-year-old just told you.

Note: President Obama recently met Greta and said they would become great friends. This summer he bought a humongous mansion by the sea. Can’t wait til she visits.

Chris Cuomo

Last week, Donald Trump held a rally in Minneapolis. He packed the 20,000 seat arena with more supporters waiting outside. After the two-hour session exiting attendees were met by hurling bags of urine and drivers were prevented from leaving their parking lots. Many left-wing wackos thought the resistance was great. Centrists were embarrassed. I was pissed off.

So much so that I called up Chris Cuomo at CNN and asked to appear on his show. He agreed and opened by naming me a supporter. He then explained the format. You say something positive, I’ll say something negative, and we’ll talk over each other until the segment ends. I said, how about something different.

In order to discuss Trump you have to separate policy from personality. Because you’ve known him, you take personality. Take two hours to explain to everyone what a douchebag he is. Then we’ll bring out one of his friends, say Carl Icahn, and he’ll make the argument that he’s actually a nice guy. This way the audience can judge. And since this is a 24-hour network, we’ll do a second segment about his time in office. For this part we’ll use two politicians. The Democrats and Republicans are full of lawyers. We’ll get a sleazeball from one side and a scumbag from the other and they can shout about his time in Washington. But this segment will take less time because we’ve heard it all before. Then I’ll take over.

For the policy segment, get me a tax accountant, a big time businessperson, and an economist. We’ll discuss every economic policy he’s passed from renegotiating NAFTA, walking away from TPP, talks with China, and the tax plan. I’ll politely argue that the president was correct in all of these positions and then we’ll hear from the others. And we’ll address each issue one by one. This way the audience can judge.

Then bring me a healthcare professional and an administrator from Veteran Affairs. We’ll discuss the pros and cons of removing Obamacare’s individual mandate, and all the changes to the VA. After that, bring me the head of the department of immigration and we’ll discuss the effect of illegals on the economy, whether pushing Mexico to guard their southern border was a good idea, and whether kids were actually put inside cages or chain link fencing was simply put inside a gymnasium. This way people can judge.

Then we’ll discuss each of Donald Trump’s 128 executive orders and the over 300 substantial congressional laws that have been passed. Please deliver appropriate personnel for each one. I’ll need additional resources to help but this way the audience can ju___. And before I could complete the word, Chris abruptly ended the interview by saying, “that’s not the way we do news in America.”

We shook hands and I left.

Note: The US doesn’t have all day news that’s unbiased like we do with CBC News World and CTV’s 24-hour channel. And Trump supporters are not racists, they’re beneficiaries of these policies.

The Dark Ages

Atheism is getting popular these days—it’s sort of becoming cool. But any good non-believer knows to recognize the historical significance of the Catholic Church, especially after the fall of the Western Empire. This period is known as the Dark Ages.

The Middle Ages go from around 500 to 1500 AD—it’s the first 500 that were considered dark. This was a time of small kingdoms warring against nomadic tribes and other small kingdoms. And without centralized control being provided by Rome, the only thing keeping it together was the Church. 

After the fall, what we know of Europe became a mess. Literacy took a nosedive and violence erupted everywhere. Why? Because without law and order people take matters into their own hands. Us modern folk complain about the role of government but without a police department, registries for property, some sort of centralized military, and departments for things like taxation, societies tend to fall apart.

War

Many believe old time rulers were greedy but that wasn’t always the case. Often the objective was plunder. Victors stole gold, silver, wheat, and land for personal survival. As a matter of fact, that’s how most armies got paid. Why else would anyone take such risk? Soldiers would often receive a share of the bounty or something substantive as a reward. 

The other reason was fear. In the words of Alcibiades, it’s rule or be ruled. So if you’re not conniving against your neighbour, they’re conniving against you. Even at home, regular folk were always edgy about riders in the night. Personal safety is a major concern of happiness. Without it, societies tend to get nervy. And that’s how it was after the loss of Rome. 

Faith

Buddhism and Confucianism were both devised around 500 BC. Almost 900 years before the construction of the Catholic Church. They provide ways of accepting the circumstance of humanity—the human condition—but neither identifies nor tries to explain a higher power. These systems deal only with introspection to find meaning. Perfect for the poor but ineffective with rulers of the day. 

Sure many thought the thoughts but neither hosted a sophisticated organization like the Catholics. They didn’t have the wingspan of churches and monasteries. Why? Because this religion of Rome was different. Like the empire itself, it was administratively organized and things were clear from the start that this institution would participate alongside power.

Catholicism

In addition to stories about Jesus, Catholicism is the merger of the old Jewish faith with philosophies of the Greeks. It kept the monster god of the Old Testament (for fear) and added a more loving one that speaks of thy neighbour. This dualism of love and fear connects with our innermost instincts, plus the guy could perform miracles. Perfect for a spooky time. 

Bishops and kings debated like peers and the church really did comfort the weak. As a result, it was greatly respected. Monasteries were the only stable locations of learning and priests were generally considered the smartest guy in town. And don’t kid yourself, these teachings got into your head. 

The psychological presence of Christianity was powerful, no matter your position. A good example comes by way of France. The queen of a small kingdom lost two sons to dysentery and blamed the tragedy on her selfish ways. She proceeded to burn the records of all those who owed the king money. Later, in an attempt at atonement, they both became generous to the poor. So from a tactical perspective, this religion was brilliant. It provided multiple levers for different situations. As one historian puts it, “this period wasn’t the rise of Christianity, it was the use of it.” 

Genres

This time also marked the end of the Mediterranean as being somewhat homogeneous. Prior to, most everyone was the same. Augustus would travel to Egypt on a regular basis. But after the fall, regions developed personalities. You had the Northern Europeans of Germany and the Franks (French), Scandinavian countries with Vikings, and Byzantine went through its own challenges. And though the story of Charlemagne is interesting, the empire of Islam accomplished the most. 

Spirituality aside, Muhammad made desert people see something larger than themselves. Saudi was a land of nomads constantly fighting among tribes. So the region was going nowhere. Then he created a belief system, not much different than Judaism or Christianity, and it unified a nation. Power then turned this natural belligerence into a caliphate that spread eastward to India and as far west as Spain. Over time they brought forward many achievements. The scientific knowledge of Greece was translated into Arabic and numbers were imported from India. They enhanced trigonometry, devised decimal fractions and square roots, created pi to 16 decimal positions, and invented algebra. They also bettered astronomy, medicine, and geography. So thanks go to Mecca.

Summary

Studying antiquity is like listening to music from the 1950s. After a while it all sounds the same. Learning about the Middle Ages is more like sounds from the 60s. There were genres and weird things going on. The fall of Rome was similar to the removal of Saddam in Iraq, there was chaos in the streets. Multiple groups clamoured for control and you never knew who to believe. With no police force or public registries, it was a basic disaster. The only constant was the Church. 

The Dark Ages ended with the introduction of feudalism. Economies were getting stronger and something new could now work. The best example is William the Conqueror in Britain. After defeating the current monarch in 1066, Billy decreed that all land was now his and taxed out large portions to barons, who could re-rent them for a profit. In return they gave him a standing army. Shared power was starting to take shape. 150 years later, King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, limiting his power to raise taxes. Another step forward, at least in the West.

In closing, though many choose to see the negative side of faith, the psychological perspectives were perfect for this time. Dogma aside, organized religion provides a moral compass and fills in when government is gone. And frankly, I think we still need it today. There’s nothing wrong with a little fear to keep you on the straight and narrow, or virtual love to get you through the day. Even if it does come from a little man in the sky.

Note: Information for this article was taken from a free online course provided by Yale University.

Antiquity

When it comes to history, the word prehistoric doesn’t mean dinosaurs. It means the time before writing. Only then from the pen did we start to get details. The first thousand years from around the Mediterranean and Iran is called classical antiquity. This period includes Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, a bunch of different religions, and interesting people like Alexander the Great. Go online and you’ll find an awesome overview by the Khan Academy that only takes a few hours. So in the span of watching a movie, you can scrunch in 1,000 years.

What’s so special about this period is that it’s had great effect on you. Why? Because Persia affected Greece, Greece influenced Rome, Western Rome became most of Europe, and Europeans incorporated much of Canada and the US. So a lot of our culture comes from this era. 

Persia and Greece

Writing began around 800 BC, but the good stuff came a few hundred years later. Herodotus started recording history, Hippocrates is the father of medicine, Pythagoras and Euclid were really good at math, Plato started the first university, and Aristotle devised the subjects we still study today. These weren’t the first smart people on Earth, they were just the first to write everything down. That being said, they were also pretty smart since many of their philosophies and theories are still being taught today. Not to mention tons of our words and phrases still come from this time.

The Romans

When most people think of Rome, they imagine the empire but that’s not fair. There were three periods. From its founding in 743 to 509 BC, it operated like a regular kingdom with one major exception—sometimes the kings were elected. So it was initially a city-state like everywhere else. Then from 509 to 27 BC, Rome was a republic with senators and consuls. Sometimes senators were elected (by the army) and sometimes they were appointed, while consuls were generally elected by the senate. This system operated in various forms until Julius Caesar won a civil war and declared himself dictator for life. His rule includes the expansion of Rome beyond the Italian peninsula and the story of Cleopatra (who was basically a tramp). 

After Julius, came his nephew—later renamed Augustus. That’s when Rome became known as an empire. Further expansion continued under a number of emperors—some good, some bad—until Constantine, who made the strongest impression by launching the conversion to Catholicism. 

The empire then split into East and West, and the West fell in 476 to Germanic tribes. The East, known as the Byzantine Empire, lasted until 1453, when it fell to the Ottoman Turks. So it’s over 2,000 years from commencement to the Eastern fall, but historians say the official empire only lasted from Augustus in 27 BC to the fall of the West. Still a very long time. 

Summary

CanAmerica is the amalgamation of First Nations people and those previously ruled by Western Rome. This means that in addition to long houses, lacrosse, and the canoe, we have been heavily influenced by Europeans. And this greatly affects you. Why? First, it’s why we have so many Latin words and Greek philosophies. Second, it’s why you were probably born a Christian.

The period after antiquity is called the Middle Ages. It goes for another thousand years and is when small kingdoms and the Catholic Church run most of Europe. It’s also when Charlemagne (a king in France) teams up with the Pope to form the Holy Roman Empire (something completely different), and when you get the formation and expansion of Islam. 

The Middle Ages end around the 1500s when things really start to cook. The Protestant Reformation splits up the Catholic Church, we get modern day democracy and capitalism, Michelangelo and da Vinci hit the scene, and of course there were oodles of inventions. We’ll have another piece on this sometime in the future, which means watching another film. In the meantime, be happy for your past. Among all the gore, a lot of great people did a lot of great work.

P.S. Check out the article on Ancient Greece.

7s and 8s

Remember the expression, “Hey Joe. What da ya know?” It was considered a great conversation starter back in the day. That’s because tapping into someone’s knowledge was considered more than just entertaining. It’s how we used to learn when people relied upon discussion.

Ever heard the expression, “She’s a ten?” The popular system for rating beauty? We commonly use a scale to describe people’s appearance, and this something-out-of-ten system can be used for all sorts of things. Take for example, intelligence. The smart—those good at learning—are commonly referred to as a 7. And those who know a great deal about a certain area are considered an 8. Unfortunately there’s a problem with 8s, they don’t know everything. 

I’m not talking about regular folk. We’re both 7s and 8s. On some topics we know a great deal and on others we don’t. It depends. For example, take day jobs. Once you spend 10,000 hours at an occupation, you pretty much know it. Same goes for hobbies and interests. And most can identify with their areas of expertise. But in our world, doctors don’t proclaim to know carpentry and carpenters don’t profess to be plumbers. We’re quite humble in this regard. The problem is with people on TV.

Intellectuals

We’re being subjected to authorities in one area commenting on matters in another, and it’s getting ridiculous. You might be a great historian or master in law, but that doesn’t make you an expert on economics. And sure, these people are smart but they speak on non-qualified areas with the same certitude as those involving their expertise. It’s crazy. 

You can’t blame them. Imagine the rush of addressing an Oxford audience, answering questions on climate change, international trade, and your analysis of Trump. The ego surge must be irresistible. But the audience needs to know one thing. When people fully understand a subject, they struggle to filter down knowledge, speak slowly, and remain calm. It’s only when you haven’t a clue that one blurts out nonsense with messiah-like ease. And there’s a reason for that.

Simplification bias

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman says, “The human mind suppresses uncertainty. We’re not only convinced we know more than we do but we figure what we don’t know is unimportant.” So it’s not only experts, it’s us too.

The problem is in the brain. Unfortunately, we need to hold an opinion on just about everything to maintain sanity. That’s why we start with observations that are simple. “Liberals are like this, Christians are like that,” until we grow into a sophistication that makes us slow down. Then, and only then, are we ready for the microphone.

Not everyone can dunk

To make matters worse, not every mind is suited for every discipline. For example, it takes 27 trades to build a house. That’s before architecture, sales, and interior design. We’re all specialists. Sure electricians and plumbers are close—they can probably talk—but designers are on a different page. So there’s a natural disposition. Meaning, 7s can’t be an 8 at everything.

This condition is common in politics. Many great lawyers are inept at understanding business. That’s why it takes so many officials to screw in a light bulb. But if you think about it, it’s the same when building a home. In the end, listening to experts is like eating chicken: one must separate meat from the bone. It’s not like experts don’t know anything. But things would be a whole lot better if they’d disclose what they did and were humble about the rest. Because when you’re considered a professional, it’s all about “What da ya know?” 

SCOTUS

Big talk these days about the Supreme Court of the United States. Apparently it has wings. Yes, news people say appointing justices to the Supreme Court depends on how they vote. As if all judging is rigged. Certainly a claim worth investigating.

How does your dentist vote—left or right? And what about your drycleaner or the lady at the bank? Liberals? Conservatives? And what if they sometimes switch? What if they say “it depends on who’s running.” Does any of this affect the way they do their duties?

“But supreme court justices are different. Politics weighs heavily on how they scrutinize law and interpret the constitution. People like them never change their mind.” Okay fine, so how about our Canadian judges. There are nine of them. Is it 5-4? 6-3? or 9-nothing? And which way do they swing because funny, I’ve never heard it mentioned.

“Oh, but in the US they have to worry about abortion. Very controversial issue. Very big deal. We don’t have that in Canada.” Are you kidding? Not only does Canada not have a law, the US has had one for almost 50 years. Legally speaking, they’re miles ahead of us on this issue. So in my opinion, this is all spoof. And the proof rests with Ruth.

Ruth Ginsberg

Apparently a democrat, Justice Ruth Ginsberg was born March 15, 1933. In 2013, with three years remaining in Obama’s last term, she was 80 years old. Now Ruth is no fool. She knew it’s typical for presidencies in the US to go 8 years democrat and then 8 years republican. So she knew there was a better than 50% chance the next president would be a republican. But at the ripe old age of 80, she decided not to retire.

Ruth worked for Obama until age 83 and is now 86. Maybe, just maybe, she knows it’s all a crock. And that’s my point. Judges take many years to develop and are of very high standing. I believe they take their positions seriously, just like my drycleaner and dentist.

Summary

In the end, many Canadians enjoy following US news. It’s entertaining. But down there they always have one foot in controversy just to keep the fans watching. And if you love this kind of stuff, great. But it’s never worth a fight.

Note: The Supreme Court of Canada employs a custom where most decisions are reported as unanimous.

Sugar

No doubt you’ve heard about low-carb diets. They’re the new wave crashing dieter nation. But there’s something you need to know about carbs before starting: they’re not all created equal. Namely, sugars are worse than starch.

To get technical, sucrose (or table sugar) is made from fructose and glucose. Fifty percent each. Starch (e.g., rice, bread, potatoes) is only made from glucose and here’s the difference. Fructose doesn’t metabolize well, so most calories go straight to fat. With glucose most go to energy.

That’s why modern nutritionists say a calorie isn’t a calorie. It’s because of how they metabolize. And in terms of metabolization, fructose is like alcohol. That’s why people get beer bellies.

But fructose is the sugar found in fruit? That’s right, and fruit is okay because the goodness in fruit outweighs its fructose. Besides, how many plums can you eat. Scientists only disparage the sugar we put in things like baking, candy bars, fruit juices, and pop. These are the culprits. And you’d be amazed by how many processed foods have it.

What about high fructose corn syrup? Isn’t it even worse? Yes and no. It’s a commercial sweetener made from corn that’s cheaper than what comes from cane. And you know how sugar is 50/50? Well HFCS is 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% something else. So in terms of fructose it’s ten percent higher, but both are bad for us chubby people.

And now that we’re talking carbs, there are two types of starches. Ones made from flour (e.g., pasta and bread) and those that exist naturally (e.g., rice, potatoes, and corn). Obviously natural are better since they contain good things like vitamins, minerals, and fibre.

So there are three types of carbs. The worst is sugar (because of fructose). Second are foods made from flour. And third are natural foods that just happen to be starchy.

Dieters need to know these differences before starting any new program. Beginning with too many items on the restricted list often leads to failure. Start your focus with sugars and then eliminate from there. In the meantime, pass the potatoes.

Carbon Tax

The problem with economics is people have difficulty seeing the point where theory ends and practicality begins, so nobody understands it. That’s why countless arguments revolve around theories that really don’t fit. Such is the case with carbon tax. 

Now to get anything from this article you must accept that climate change is real. That, for the purpose of this discussion, there’s no doubt the dangers claimed by earth scientists are 100% accurate and not politically motivated. Once done, swallow, and focus on your nation’s role in addressing this crisis. 

Sources and uses

We have many types of energy, used in different ways, that come from multiple sources. To simplify things, let’s start with a chart:

Follow the green arrows and you’ll see the solution is to generate clean electricity, and then use it for everything. That’s what’s happening in transportation. Electric cars are surely coming and we now have electric buses. Back in the 80s, my aunt’s home used electric heat and all modern appliances are energy efficient. So we’re getting there on the consumption side. What we don’t know is how to make power that’s completely green. 

Green

You’ve heard it before that hydro is clean. So if the world had waterfalls and dams everywhere we wouldn’t be talking. Unfortunately, not every region has a Niagara Falls. That’s why fossil fuels are still being used. And since nuclear seems to be off the table, we‘re stuck with natural movements like wind and, of course, solar. 

But Canada has done little in either regard. Windy places like Newfoundland only have a few mills and sunny Alberta has hardly a panel. Clean abundant provinces like Ontario, BC, and Quebec—that generate over 90% of their electricity from green—have spent more on both than anyone. So to me, it seems like we’re unorganized. Enter carbon tax.

Carbon tax

Carbon tax is aimed at reducing direct consumption. The theory goes if you’re forced to pay an additional 10-30 cents per litre for gasoline, you’ll drive less or switch to a smaller car. Then maybe you’ll go electric when your type of vehicle becomes available. 

Well, I don’t see anyone driving less. And currently electric vehicles are all small. So trading my fuel efficient Corolla for one of these doesn’t make sense. We’ve seen high gas prices before. Likewise with home heating. Granted my aunt had electric, but today there isn’t an alternative to gas—so you can only move to a smaller house. But when you factor in discomfort and the real estate fees, you’ll probably stay put.

They also say when faced with higher energy charges business will innovate—so they save money. Nice pipe dream. Most large businesses in Canada operate within a co-opoly. So for them, as costs go up, prices do too. It’s not like Bell will invent a waterfall to get a leg up on Telus. That’s not the way it works.

Long story short: carbon tax in Canada is mostly a tax. It may work when electric cars are fully available and home heating comes in alternatives, but right now it’s mostly a tax. And dwelling on direct consumption isn’t really solving the problem. We need more technology.

Challenge

Over two billion people are entering the middle class with another two billion coming. So in a world of that many, our country’s role isn’t to show everyone how to consume. It’s to help develop green. Specifically, generating electricity from non-carbon sources.

We need a project of a NASA-like nature, to focus on earth. Specialty centres where scientists can create without budgets or bottom lines—and economics doesn’t do that. 

Instead of acting like some kid looking for a participation award, Canada should be leading the charge by hosting its own NASA centre. Hey, the world needs more carbon-free power and who’s going to do it? The Africans?

The plan

During WWII, Winston Churchill and FDR talked to the masses. They used radio for countrywide meetings to explain things and rally the troops. This held everyone focused because people knew what the plan was. And it made sense because this was a crisis.

So who’s in charge of solving climate change? Business, billionaires, or government? If government, which ones? Canada, the EU, or China? Truth is, we’ve inspired hundreds of tiny spikes traveling in all sorts of directions without any mission control. And though this approach can be very creative, it doesn’t work with a crisis. 

We can build batteries for buses but can’t make one for the Ford F-150. Tesla can electrify larger vehicles but doesn’t know how to make cars. GM knows how to make cars, but when it comes to electric vehicles they can only build smaller ones. So, while earnest and worthwhile, efforts haven’t been coordinated. When faced with an epidemic, the World Health Organization doesn’t operate in millions of cells. The body takes charge. And when faced with natural disasters, every country has a system. But when it comes to climate change we have only one organization to detail the problem. Nothing to find the cure. That’s not good.

Summary

A popular line used by crusaders is “what are you going to tell your grandchildren?” As if it’s all the consumer’s fault. Here’s what I’ll be telling mine. We spent an awful lot of time staring at the wrong end of the dog. 

Politics and mankind require strong leaders to operate and we didn’t have a Churchill or FDR. We had only naive do-gooders unqualified for their job. Not bad people, just ones who shouldn’t have been in charge. Then again, maybe there is no solution to this grave situation. Maybe it’s just not possible to make enough energy that is green? Maybe the species who developed the Hubble telescope and landed on the moon isn’t capable of this task? And maybe inventions like the computer and nuclear power were all just flukes.

Hey, wait a minute.