Weekly Bulletin #8

Here is my eighth weekly update based on the events this past week. The torture issue in Afghanistan seems to have more information coming out that the government either knew or had warnings torture may have been occurring. Until a full investigation is done, one cannot say for sure one way or another, but based on Afghanistan's human rights track record, it seems quite plausible it did happen. Off course this brings the question once again as to why are we there. I don't know how much could have been done to prevent this other than not being there as this is not a country with a stellar human rights record and this was bound to happen eventually.

This weekend kicks of the Copenhagen climate summit. Those who believe in global warming are demanding more aggressive targets with penalties for non-compliance while the skeptics argue global warming is a hoax and this is all about a socialist wealth transfer scheme. I believe global warming is real and the skeptics argue against it more because it goes against their ideology. By the same time I think alarmists are exaggerating its impact greatly. When one considers the large carbon footprint delegates made just to get there, I think the question should be asked, if they are so concerned about the environment, why can't they hold the conference via satellite conferencing. Also, negotiating treaties at an international level is often difficult to do due to diverging interests between countries. Which brings me to the question that maybe Canada should focus less on getting an international agreement and more on establishing a national plan. Having a similiar meeting between provincial and municipal leaders with the federal government would be far more effective in achieving real results than an international one which is made up of mostly countries that don't care one bit about our country and its impact. Another issue is why isn't the idea discussed of adapting since this might be less costly and can certainly be done as humans advance in technology. I am not opposed to us signing an agreement, but only if it serves our national interest. Yes, not signing one would damage our international reputation, but we should never apologize for wanting to protect our sovereignty or putting our national interest first. If others don't like the fact we want to remain an independent country and not surrender our sovereignty to international organizations that is their problem, not ours. I believe that we need a stronger federal government, which means less power for the provinces and less power for international organizations. Greater provincial autonomy undermines our ability to remain as a united country and international organizations undermine our ability to make decisions independently. While it is true the loss of sovereignty would be minimal at first, lets remember the EU was the same way 50 years ago, yet today the EU almost resembles a nation state in its own right in many ways. We should not go down this path. In addition each country is unique and its makes more sense to recognize this and allow them to solve problems based on this. We are a country with a huge landmass and a cold climate which does not apply to many others and this no doubt makes it harder to reduce GHG's than for some others. Also the tar sands may be a frequent target by many in both Canada and abroad, but the wealth generated from this not only benefits Alberta, it benefits all of Canada in terms of more jobs, more tax revenue which can be used to pay for many of our programs. After all, many Canadians nowadays don't just search for jobs in their own province, but search throughout Canada, so any new jobs created in any region benefits all of Canada. Likewise, all Canadians pay taxes towards programs that benefit all of Canada, not just their own province. That is not say we should find ways to diversify Alberta's economy and make oil production cleaner, but shutting it down is just plain stupid. Besides a second National Energy Program would likely cause Alberta to leave Canada altogether and for those on the left who think this is a good thing (some believe it would mean fewer right wing governments) think again. Many of the social programs those want on the left would be more difficult to fund without Alberta. I oppose Canada sending money to developing countries to deal with climate change. This money should stay in Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. If countries are serious about dealing with climate change the developed ones should invest the money in their own country to deal with global warming and developing ones should learn to deal with the resources they have instead of always relying on developed ones for money. In terms of emissions rising in Alberta, while British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec having more aggressive targets, I agree this is an issue, but this is why we should have a national conference to deal with this as at an international level, no one cares what each province does, they only care what the country does at a whole. This doesn't mean we shouldn't attend Copenhagen, but we should have had a national one first and the national one should determine our action plan and if the international one compliments this, all the better, but if it doesn't we should use the national one. Now this doesn't mean I am a denier or a skeptic. In fact I would support a national cap and trade system or even a carbon tax, provided the carbon tax was offset by income and corporate tax cuts elsewhere. These could all go along ways to reduce our GHG's. Likewise, I think we need to re-assess our view that Canada needs population growth. While some environmentalists think we can have more people if we just lived more sustainably, the reality is population growth while make GHG reductions more difficult. This means we should not see our lower birth rate as a bad thing, but rather as a positive. Also, it might be to consider scaling back our immigration levels and longer term focus on zero population growth, rather than continuously increasing our population. That is not say I think we should reduce our immigration levels, I am simply pointing out those who want us to dramatically reduce GHG's be near impossible level yet want our population to grow significantly (i.e. the Green Party and some in the NDP and Liberals) are being totally unrealistic.

To end this off, today Houston elected their first openly gay mayor. While a politician's sexual orientation shouldn't matter, the reality is in much of the world today and almost everywhere historically, one could not get elected if they were gay even if all their policies were good. The fact it happened in a rather conservative city makes it even more impressive. After all, this would be non-news if it happened in San Francisco where most of the population is quite supportive of gay rights, but definitely in a normally conservative city like Houston.