Canada Stands Indicted

While I most assuredly cannot claim any virtue when it comes to climate-change mitigation (I still fly, probably the greatest environmental sin one can commit), I do understand the gravity of what the world faces; to say I am pessimistic about our future is a massive understatement. That pessimism has been given new impetus by a piece Bill McKibben has written in The Guardian.

Despite having elected a government purporting to take climate-change seriously, it is likely we will approve a new tars sands project that will add countless megatonnes of greenhouse gases to the world's atmosphere:

The Teck mine would be the biggest tar sands mine yet: 113 square miles of petroleum mining, located just 16 miles from the border of Wood Buffalo national park. A federal panel approved the mine despite conceding that it would likely be harmful to the environment and to the land culture of Indigenous people... Canadian authorities ruled that the mine was nonetheless in the “public interest”.

To put things into perspective,

Canada, which is 0.5% of the planet’s population, plans to use up nearly a third of the planet’s remaining carbon budget [emphasis added]. Ottawa hides all this behind a series of pledges about “net-zero emissions by 2050” and so on, but they are empty promises.

Despite the worldwide evidence that we are witnessing the beginnings of runaway climate-change, we just can't seem to help ourselves.

... the Teck Frontier proposal is predicated on the idea that we’ll still need vast quantities of oil in 2066, when Greta Thunberg is about to hit retirement age. If an alcoholic assured you he was taking his condition very seriously, but also laying in a 40-year store of bourbon, you’d be entitled to doubt his sincerity, or at least to note his confusion.

Canada is far from unique in its addiction to, and advocacy for, more fossil-fuel development. What perhaps differentiates us from the world's other bad-actors in this domain is our pious avowals that we are enacting measures that will address the problem

As Bill McKibben points out, nothing could be further from the truth.

They Are Not The Exclusive Domain Of Republicans

They being intolerance and homophobia, as this exchange at the Iowa Democratic caucus makes clear:

Death Of An Icon

Dear Friends:

There is no easy way to say this: Mr. Peanut is no more. The first video below depicts the circumstances of his demise, while the second is a loving retrospective of his long life.

Looking for the silver lining of this shocking news, however, one must consider the possibility that his death was for the best; stories have abounded for years of his sad decline, many saying that he was a mere shell of his former self.

Composting has already taken place.

All Things Considered

All Things Considered is a show on NPR...good radio. Republicans don't listen cause they already have a show on FOX called "Lick Trump's Balls." https://t.co/i17FfR2vAx @TheRickWilson @gtconway3d @McFaul @Rosie @janemarielynch @girlsreallyrule @RepSwalwell @FrankFigliuzzi1 @NPR pic.twitter.com/oKx0lb7rC9

— Chip Franklin (@chipfranklin) January 30, 2020

The Living, Beating Heart Of Canada

Having visited St. John's last summer, I found that the stories of Newfoundlanders' boundless generosity and graciousness are absolutely true. Therefore, the following resonates deeply with me:

.@markcritch’s ode to the Newfoundland blizzard. #nlstorm2020 #nlblizzard2020 #nlwx pic.twitter.com/ksZEcH0EQe

— CBC News: The National (@CBCTheNational) January 21, 2020

Lev Parnas, International Man Of Mystery

Is he a hybrid of Zelig and Forrest Gump? Is he a grifter trying to make his mark on the American psyche? Is he, as suggested by Trump's impeachment defence lawyer Patricia Bondi, simply a publicity seeker?

Or is Rudi Guiliani associate Lev (Trump: I-don't-know-the-man) Parnas telling the truth when he says he was intimately involved in the Ukrainian scandal, facilitating the search for dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter?

You decide, but pay special attention to the pictorial evidence of his associations included in the following report:

Not So Fast, Capitalism

The triumphalism of capitalism can sometimes be hard to take. Platitudes such as "A rising tide lifts all boats" abound, rarely questioned except by the most astute among us, thereby excluding much of the MSM.

Fortunately, there are still people like Linda McQuaig to set the record straight on a recent claim in the NYT that life just keeps getting better today:

Amid growing criticism of extreme inequality, expect to hear lots more about how today’s capitalism is benefiting the world — especially next week when the global elite meets for their annual self-celebration in Davos, Switzerland.

It’s a powerful narrative. If capitalism is working wonders for humanity, maybe it doesn’t matter that a small number of billionaires have an increasing share of the world’s wealth.

But is the narrative true?

McQuaig suggests something other than capitalism is at work that has improved people's lives:

Life expectancy only began to improve towards the end of the 1800s — and only because of the public health movement, which pushed for separating sewage from drinking water. This extremely good idea was vigorously opposed by capitalists, who raged against paying taxes to fund it.

So sanitation, not capitalism, may be humanity’s true elixir.

Indeed, things only truly got better, says British historian Simon Szreter, after ordinary people won the right to vote and to join unions that pushed for higher wages and helped secure public access to health care, education and housing — again over the fierce objections of capitalists.

This suggests that it’s not capitalism but rather the forces fighting to curb capitalism’s worst excesses — unions and progressive political movements — that have improved people’s lives.

This is not to imply, however, that advocates of unfettered capitalism are helpless against such onslaughts of insight. While public polling suggests widespread, growing support for greater taxation of the wealthy, they have a potent threat in their arsenal:

Don’t even think of taxing us, because we’ll just move our money offshore.

The antidote to such extortionate tactics is suggested by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, economists at the University of California, Berkeley, in their book, The Triumph of Injustice:

... they argue that advanced nations could effectively clamp down on tax havens if they co-ordinated their efforts, just as they do in other areas, like trade policy.

Saez and Zucman point out there’s nothing to prevent advanced nations from simply collecting the corporate taxes that the tax havens don’t.

Recent reporting requirements make this possible. “It has never been easier for big countries to police their own multinationals,” they argue. “Should the G20 countries tomorrow impose a 25 per cent minimum tax on their multinationals, more than 90 per cent of the world’s profits would immediately become effectively taxed at 25 per cent or more.”

As always, there are solutions to the ills that plague us. What is in short supply, however, are politicians with the vision, integrity and backbone to implement them.