A friend asked me about the Climate Interactive Scoreboard, and Bill McKibben's interpretation of its predictions that commitments made by countries will lead to 770 ppm (of CO2 or CO2e? That's not clear either).
I responded with this:
I think that we'll avoid those levels - or at least, if we reach those levels, it'll be because of positive feedback loops (e.g. release of methane from permafrost and gas hydrates), not because of anthropogenic emissions.
Here's why:
1) There aren't enough fossil fuels to get there. While natural gas reserves are up in North America, and quite dramatically, oil reserves show no sign of increasing sufficiently. The 10 billion barrels we've found in 2009 (highest this decade)? Humanity runs through that in four months. We're probably looking at only enough resources to get to doubling of CO2. If that.
2) The 770 ppm number is likely misleading, and I hope Bill McKibben would know better. I went to the site and see only their temperature target for the weakest targets - and perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I think we'll do better than our weakest targets globally (except for maybe Canada, we're a bunch of climate knuckle draggers with our collective heads in the oil sands). It assumes nothing about the long-term targets. We won't get to 770 ppm.
3) Confusion between metrics. I don't know if their 770 ppm refers to CO2 or CO2e. Probably the latter. 350 refers to CO2. That is equal to about 445 ppm CO2e, given methane, nitrous oxide and other non-CO2 GHGs.
4) I really believe we're not that stupid. Except maybe in North America and China, and perhaps India (oops). But the impacts are being felt and they point to anthropogenic climate change. We know better. The costs are not high, and will largely come back to us, in a large measure. Just like it would likely be with health care - the costs of insuring all Americans is probably equal to the way the system works now, because it would drop insurance costs.
I think that, at some point, trade protectionism in the US will line up with climate protection. People will decide that, between spending $X dollars on importing fuel from Saudi Arabia, or Algeria, or those frozen bastards in Alberta (shit - a lot of those companies are based in the US, that might not be a good example), they'd rather spend it on American companies who build insulation, wind turbines, solar collectors and cells, and construction companies building more sustainable communities. All of these are domestic jobs that can be difficult (though not impossible) to outsource. The language of the Kerry-Boxer bill (Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act) might indicate that the discussion is shifting.
I hope.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Had to park this somewhere...
I just wrote this on a friend's Facebook wall, but need a more permanent place to store it. Someone was badmouthing carbon taxes.
Here's what I was responding to:
"A carbon tax as a way for the government to enforce environmental policy is a bullshit idea.
Do we need a carbon tax or do we need more stringent environmental laws, enforcement of those laws and much stiffer penalties for companies that break the laws? I would think so.... See More
A carbon tax is the government attempting to create a new industry, new jobs and increase their own tax base. It does not solve the climate situation nor does it influence corporations to take real steps to build more sustainable business practices.
Carbon sequestration in underground cavities does not push businesses to create less carbon, now does it?
It's in the nature of big business to find loopholes like that and they're most adept at finding loopholes in tax structures. In the end, a carbon tax will be passed on to the consumers anyway so why not just tax the end user on their income and use that to enforce environmental law? Go give someone in Ft Mac a billion dollar fine for dumping crude in the river and see how every producer all across Canada suddenly finds the money and energy to change how they produce oil.
A carbon tax will not give you that kind of result, if you get any result at all."
And here's my response:
'I disagree with your carbon tax assessments, however. Sweden has a carbon tax of $150/tonne. Biogas is now being used to fuel fleet vehicles and provide cooking fuel; waste products from the forestry industry and landfill gas have replaced oil in district heating systems. It's incredible the changes you'll see with the right incentives... The tax has made the local energy options cheaper (the carbon tax also keeps money inside the country, as Sweden doesn't have domestic fossil fuel reserves - kind of like us Eastern bastards ;) ).
Sweden's economy is up about 48% since 1990 while its emissions are down 9%.
Carbon taxes are not like income taxes - they dissuade consumption of polluting goods, which is soemthing I believe we all agree is something that we'd prefer to see less of, and they do it cheaply and efficiently. They don't drive CCS, because it's still too expensive a technology.
A carbon tax can't be done in isolation - it needs other policies to ensure there's also a cap on emissions- but it can change the way people look at technological options. Because money talks.
Finally, isn't creating the incentives to move an economy and society towards something better part of government's job? If not, what is government's job? One of the huge questions.'
I want to come back to these ideas. What's the role of government? What is the best way to constrain emissions? Which levels of government are best placed to achieve this, and how do we get them to collaborate?
Here's what I was responding to:
"A carbon tax as a way for the government to enforce environmental policy is a bullshit idea.
Do we need a carbon tax or do we need more stringent environmental laws, enforcement of those laws and much stiffer penalties for companies that break the laws? I would think so.... See More
A carbon tax is the government attempting to create a new industry, new jobs and increase their own tax base. It does not solve the climate situation nor does it influence corporations to take real steps to build more sustainable business practices.
Carbon sequestration in underground cavities does not push businesses to create less carbon, now does it?
It's in the nature of big business to find loopholes like that and they're most adept at finding loopholes in tax structures. In the end, a carbon tax will be passed on to the consumers anyway so why not just tax the end user on their income and use that to enforce environmental law? Go give someone in Ft Mac a billion dollar fine for dumping crude in the river and see how every producer all across Canada suddenly finds the money and energy to change how they produce oil.
A carbon tax will not give you that kind of result, if you get any result at all."
And here's my response:
'I disagree with your carbon tax assessments, however. Sweden has a carbon tax of $150/tonne. Biogas is now being used to fuel fleet vehicles and provide cooking fuel; waste products from the forestry industry and landfill gas have replaced oil in district heating systems. It's incredible the changes you'll see with the right incentives... The tax has made the local energy options cheaper (the carbon tax also keeps money inside the country, as Sweden doesn't have domestic fossil fuel reserves - kind of like us Eastern bastards ;) ).
Sweden's economy is up about 48% since 1990 while its emissions are down 9%.
Carbon taxes are not like income taxes - they dissuade consumption of polluting goods, which is soemthing I believe we all agree is something that we'd prefer to see less of, and they do it cheaply and efficiently. They don't drive CCS, because it's still too expensive a technology.
A carbon tax can't be done in isolation - it needs other policies to ensure there's also a cap on emissions- but it can change the way people look at technological options. Because money talks.
Finally, isn't creating the incentives to move an economy and society towards something better part of government's job? If not, what is government's job? One of the huge questions.'
I want to come back to these ideas. What's the role of government? What is the best way to constrain emissions? Which levels of government are best placed to achieve this, and how do we get them to collaborate?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Blogging on Climate Change
Hi everyone,
It's been a while (pretty much 6 months, actually) since I've blogged, but today is Blog Action Day (See www.blogactionday.org), and it's on a subject that's near and dear to my heart, climate change. I could say so much about this topic, a lot of which has been said already.
I came to a pretty sad climate realization today. The time to act and really get serious was two years ago, in 2007, when we all had a lot of money and it was flowing fairly freely, and we had the information we needed in the form of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Why not take some of that cup that is running over and invest it in technologies and designs of all sorts that would make our societies much more resilient. Now, we're borrowing against our future (well, we would've probably have been doing that in 2007, but at least the debt would've been less), investing stimulus money in... to be honest, I'm not sure. I doubt, however, that what the Canadian government is spending on has sustainability and dealing with climate change written into it.
The International Energy Agency just published the climate change chapter for their World Energy Outlook for 2009. The cost to avert catastrophic climate change? About 1.1% of GDP in 2030 (or, $1.2 trillion). Less than what the IPCC said two years ago. They didn't look at the financial or other benefits that would come out of that investment, except for fuel costs (which would go down by about $8.6 trillion over the 20 years between 2010 and 2030; though it doesn't say how much in 2030, it's probably close to $1 trillion) and health costs (which would go down by about $100 billion). So - here we are - a chance to create a cleaner world, at a true long-term profit. A chance to save money now and into the future. A chance to create places that are really help people meet their fundamental human needs. This can really start at Copenhagen.
Are we ready to do it?
It's been a while (pretty much 6 months, actually) since I've blogged, but today is Blog Action Day (See www.blogactionday.org), and it's on a subject that's near and dear to my heart, climate change. I could say so much about this topic, a lot of which has been said already.
I came to a pretty sad climate realization today. The time to act and really get serious was two years ago, in 2007, when we all had a lot of money and it was flowing fairly freely, and we had the information we needed in the form of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Why not take some of that cup that is running over and invest it in technologies and designs of all sorts that would make our societies much more resilient. Now, we're borrowing against our future (well, we would've probably have been doing that in 2007, but at least the debt would've been less), investing stimulus money in... to be honest, I'm not sure. I doubt, however, that what the Canadian government is spending on has sustainability and dealing with climate change written into it.
The International Energy Agency just published the climate change chapter for their World Energy Outlook for 2009. The cost to avert catastrophic climate change? About 1.1% of GDP in 2030 (or, $1.2 trillion). Less than what the IPCC said two years ago. They didn't look at the financial or other benefits that would come out of that investment, except for fuel costs (which would go down by about $8.6 trillion over the 20 years between 2010 and 2030; though it doesn't say how much in 2030, it's probably close to $1 trillion) and health costs (which would go down by about $100 billion). So - here we are - a chance to create a cleaner world, at a true long-term profit. A chance to save money now and into the future. A chance to create places that are really help people meet their fundamental human needs. This can really start at Copenhagen.
Are we ready to do it?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Job sprawl
Recently, I've become really interested in Richard Florida's work on cities, what makes certain cities successful, and why some are more geared to one's personality than others. I found this article on his blog about the increasing suburbanization of the American work force.
I felt compelled to respond; it would take a lot longer to make a strong, coherent argument, but this is a start:
It’s interesting to note what jobs are moving out of the city centres. Transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, utilities, and real estate and rental and leasing were mentioned. In some of these cases, there is a real interest in locating out of the centre. Transportation and warehousing is easier out there; not only is there more space, but traffic snarls from attempting to enter urban cores are avoided. The other positions follow people closer to their suburban homes. However, I wonder why positions in other fields have concentrated outside of the city centres, and why mining is the only industry to have concentrated towards the centre of cities. I’m not sure that their position categories capture all relevant forms of employment, and it seems that the most creative industries are less apt to have moved (health, education, arts, information), though professional and management positions have moved more than the average.
I think the authors nail the potential impacts of the increasing suburbanization of jobs on the prospects for economic development:
“The decentralization of employment, by lowering density and interaction among proximate firms and workers, may also lower the rate of innovation. Carlino and colleagues find that across metro areas patenting rates are strongly associated with employment densities in the urbanized portion of those metro areas.″
I don’t believe this bodes well for environmental sustainability, either.
A shift to nodal development, where there are centres of development outside of the city centre that act as clusters for employment, day-to-day needs, etc., that provide increased accessibility without dependence on private transport, could mitigate the environmental impact of the suburbanization of work. But would that be considered the creation of new city centres? Overall, this appears to be a worrying trend.
Those that are against taxes should keep in mind that services need to be paid for somehow. Creative taxation solutions might work better, though. This, however, doesn’t seem like the right forum to discuss taxation solutions to encourage the return to urban centres (and I don’t have the expertise to discuss taxation, either!).
I felt compelled to respond; it would take a lot longer to make a strong, coherent argument, but this is a start:
It’s interesting to note what jobs are moving out of the city centres. Transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, utilities, and real estate and rental and leasing were mentioned. In some of these cases, there is a real interest in locating out of the centre. Transportation and warehousing is easier out there; not only is there more space, but traffic snarls from attempting to enter urban cores are avoided. The other positions follow people closer to their suburban homes. However, I wonder why positions in other fields have concentrated outside of the city centres, and why mining is the only industry to have concentrated towards the centre of cities. I’m not sure that their position categories capture all relevant forms of employment, and it seems that the most creative industries are less apt to have moved (health, education, arts, information), though professional and management positions have moved more than the average.
I think the authors nail the potential impacts of the increasing suburbanization of jobs on the prospects for economic development:
“The decentralization of employment, by lowering density and interaction among proximate firms and workers, may also lower the rate of innovation. Carlino and colleagues find that across metro areas patenting rates are strongly associated with employment densities in the urbanized portion of those metro areas.″
I don’t believe this bodes well for environmental sustainability, either.
A shift to nodal development, where there are centres of development outside of the city centre that act as clusters for employment, day-to-day needs, etc., that provide increased accessibility without dependence on private transport, could mitigate the environmental impact of the suburbanization of work. But would that be considered the creation of new city centres? Overall, this appears to be a worrying trend.
Those that are against taxes should keep in mind that services need to be paid for somehow. Creative taxation solutions might work better, though. This, however, doesn’t seem like the right forum to discuss taxation solutions to encourage the return to urban centres (and I don’t have the expertise to discuss taxation, either!).
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Ottawa Senators and the .500 mark
I read an article today about the Sens, and that the team went over the .500 mark, which to me, means they've won more games than they've lost. Others interpret it as the team having taken more than 50% of the points available to them. I don't agree with this interpretation, because in the old NHL, there were only twice as many points available as games played. In a season of 30 teams playing 82 games, this would translate to 2460 points. Today, there is no specific ceiling to the number of points teams can get. But, it is more than 2460. It could be as high as 3690; but that would require EVERY game going to at least overtime, if not shoot-outs.
Anyhow, in the current system, the Senators have 31 wins, 30 losses, and 10 overtime/shoot-out losses. So they've won 31 games, and lost 40 games. While they have 72 points out of 142 points, they have lost nine more games than they've won.
On top of that, they wouldn't have necessarily won 31 games in the old system. Three of those wins are shoot-out wins, and they have five shoot-out losses to date (this data will change as the last 11 games are completed).
Those games, under the old system, would've been ties. Overtime losses would have fit into the loss category - the Sens have lost five overtime games prior to the shout-out, so those would've fit into the old "loss" category.
So, under the old system, they'd have 28 wins, 35 losses and 8 ties - 7 games below .500. They would've had 64 points, 8 points fewer than they have now.
Anyhow, in the current system, the Senators have 31 wins, 30 losses, and 10 overtime/shoot-out losses. So they've won 31 games, and lost 40 games. While they have 72 points out of 142 points, they have lost nine more games than they've won.
On top of that, they wouldn't have necessarily won 31 games in the old system. Three of those wins are shoot-out wins, and they have five shoot-out losses to date (this data will change as the last 11 games are completed).
Those games, under the old system, would've been ties. Overtime losses would have fit into the loss category - the Sens have lost five overtime games prior to the shout-out, so those would've fit into the old "loss" category.
So, under the old system, they'd have 28 wins, 35 losses and 8 ties - 7 games below .500. They would've had 64 points, 8 points fewer than they have now.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sweden and Sustainability
Hey,
This was an email I put together, but this is probably a better place to put it.
So, I've been living in Sweden for almost 7 months now. I've been able to see some of the incredible work going on in leading Sweden towards sustainability.
I live in Karlskrona, which is a kind of unremarkable town on the road towards sustainability, other than having the first university in Sweden to declare that it would be climate neutral. Karlskrona does has a biomass-fired district heating plant, and the house I live in on an island (Långö, which translates to Long Island) half way between school and downtown has a ground-source heat pump, because the district heating network's pipes are just being laid down here now. Karlskrona also has some pretty good density in the town centre. However, it is fairly sprawled and has a power centre, not unlike those of Canadian cities. On the other hand, it has good public transport and bicycle paths to get there.
Karlskrona is 90 km south of Kalmar and 115 km southeast of Växjö. These two cities are doing much better on their road to sustainability.
I completed a project on looking at how Växjö, which has the slogan "The Greenest City in Europe" (originally given to it by The Independent in August 2007, could make future developments as sustainable as possible. Växjö is a pseudo-success story. They set a target to reduce fossil carbon emissions by 50% from 1993 levels by 2010, and have made a 32% reduction so far (as of 2007), mostly through shifting their combined heat and power plant from oil to biomass (largely locally-sourced wood residues, given its location in Småland, which is one of the leading lumber regions in Sweden). However, transportation emissions remain intractable, and have gone up 15% over the 15 year period.
Interestingly, Kalmar has started to steal some of the thunder from Växjö. The Smålandsposten, which is the regional newspaper for the area covering both Kalmar and Växjö, has been criticizing Växjö Kommun (somewhat unjustly) for not buying new biodiesel buses and instead getting older ones from Kalmar. However, Växjö plans on using biogas from their wastewater treatment in new buses starting in 2010.
It is interesting to note how Swedes have very similar conditions to Canadians and yet are so much further ahead. I still haven't nailed down exactly what it is, but there is no doubt culture plays a large part in it. How often have we heard Swedish companies say that they're moving towards sustainability because "it's the right thing to do"? More than once...
There is one thing, however, that really changes things. For all taxes collected up to the 30% tax bracket, 2/3 are directed straight to the municipalities. The other 1/3 goes to the county. Beyond that, the national government gets to collect taxes, e.g. the exorbitant 25% sales taxes on goods as well as gambling and alcohol revenues, and carbon taxes which will raise about SEK28 billion (CDN$4.5 billion) in Sweden this year, at about $150/tonne (I can't find the actual rate by searching through the Swedish government website in either Swedish or English, since carbon taxes and energy taxes are lumped together).
That may explain why Swedes are more willing to pay taxes - because they see the benefit at the local level. To me, this is a much better system than the property tax system in Canada (i.e. municipalities can only collect from transfers and property taxes). I don't pretend to have a strong grip on tax systems, and am welcome to comments on what I've written here.
This was an email I put together, but this is probably a better place to put it.
So, I've been living in Sweden for almost 7 months now. I've been able to see some of the incredible work going on in leading Sweden towards sustainability.
I live in Karlskrona, which is a kind of unremarkable town on the road towards sustainability, other than having the first university in Sweden to declare that it would be climate neutral. Karlskrona does has a biomass-fired district heating plant, and the house I live in on an island (Långö, which translates to Long Island) half way between school and downtown has a ground-source heat pump, because the district heating network's pipes are just being laid down here now. Karlskrona also has some pretty good density in the town centre. However, it is fairly sprawled and has a power centre, not unlike those of Canadian cities. On the other hand, it has good public transport and bicycle paths to get there.
Karlskrona is 90 km south of Kalmar and 115 km southeast of Växjö. These two cities are doing much better on their road to sustainability.
I completed a project on looking at how Växjö, which has the slogan "The Greenest City in Europe" (originally given to it by The Independent in August 2007, could make future developments as sustainable as possible. Växjö is a pseudo-success story. They set a target to reduce fossil carbon emissions by 50% from 1993 levels by 2010, and have made a 32% reduction so far (as of 2007), mostly through shifting their combined heat and power plant from oil to biomass (largely locally-sourced wood residues, given its location in Småland, which is one of the leading lumber regions in Sweden). However, transportation emissions remain intractable, and have gone up 15% over the 15 year period.
Interestingly, Kalmar has started to steal some of the thunder from Växjö. The Smålandsposten, which is the regional newspaper for the area covering both Kalmar and Växjö, has been criticizing Växjö Kommun (somewhat unjustly) for not buying new biodiesel buses and instead getting older ones from Kalmar. However, Växjö plans on using biogas from their wastewater treatment in new buses starting in 2010.
It is interesting to note how Swedes have very similar conditions to Canadians and yet are so much further ahead. I still haven't nailed down exactly what it is, but there is no doubt culture plays a large part in it. How often have we heard Swedish companies say that they're moving towards sustainability because "it's the right thing to do"? More than once...
There is one thing, however, that really changes things. For all taxes collected up to the 30% tax bracket, 2/3 are directed straight to the municipalities. The other 1/3 goes to the county. Beyond that, the national government gets to collect taxes, e.g. the exorbitant 25% sales taxes on goods as well as gambling and alcohol revenues, and carbon taxes which will raise about SEK28 billion (CDN$4.5 billion) in Sweden this year, at about $150/tonne (I can't find the actual rate by searching through the Swedish government website in either Swedish or English, since carbon taxes and energy taxes are lumped together).
That may explain why Swedes are more willing to pay taxes - because they see the benefit at the local level. To me, this is a much better system than the property tax system in Canada (i.e. municipalities can only collect from transfers and property taxes). I don't pretend to have a strong grip on tax systems, and am welcome to comments on what I've written here.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Communication skills really are learned...
Hey everyone,
Back for the first time in a while. Some down time (well, not really... but making it anyway).
I have been enjoying my time biking around in the not-so-cold of Karlskrona, not having to depend on the bus system, but having it as an option. Neither can be said of Ottawa these days, and I feel for those stuck because of the transit strike. It is my belief that transit should be considered an essential service, and this strike should've lasted all of three or four days before mediators and an independent arbitrator brought it to a close. Both sides are making Ottawans suffer.
One of my contacts back home recently made his views on the strike known to many people; he sent them out to all of the city councillors, the mayor and a mailing list. His approach was, well... undiplomatic? Let's just say that I could picture throbbing veins either in his neck or his forehead while writing it.
There's an approach we learn here which I had learned before (I remember discussing it in Gr. 11 gym class) but never had a name for - our program calls it non-violent communication (to me, it's a form of diplomacy). Not rocket-science, but so often forgotten when trying to win others over. Basically, framing arguments from the "I think that..." or "I feel that..." perspective, so the other side of the argument isn't as defensive.
It wouldn't be fair or right for me to post his message or say his name. But I can probably explain a bit more about communication skills and non-violent communication (and my own opinion of the bus strike, and my current, early perspective on the state of cities and municipalities in Sweden) through my response to my contact. See the message I sent him below (in almost its entirety; only pleasantries and statements superfluous to the argument have been removed).
______________________________________
Hey,
I am impressed with the amount of time you have taken on this issue. We need more people to hold city council to task, especially when they have been in the wrong, as they have been on the strike.
In Sweden, municipalities are really strong and own loads of stuff - district heating plants, transit companies, etc. They are really good at making money outside of tax revenue! Different model, and I think there's a lot more trust in government here (as is evidenced by your message).
While I agree with your assessments, I don't think that your approach has been the most productive means of getting your point across. Were I sitting in the seat of the councillors, particularly those suburban/rural councillors that are on Larry's side, I would probably react by not responding to your message, and perhaps not reading it beyond where the anger and the insults begin. I don't think the councillors are retarded monkeys; I think that those that agree with Mayor O'Brien (shudder - still can't believe Ottawans did that) are making a huge mistake, and making the citizens of Ottawa suffer unnecessarily. They may be doing it out of malice, or poor social skills and poor political skills and acumen, but idiocy isn't the problem. Even if this is the case, name calling will not change things - they're far more likely to go on the defensive and defend their actions, no matter how ridiculous those actions are. No doubt they have many people calling them out on this, and they're especially stressed at this time - that enough should get them back to the table.
Politics and diplomacy is about telling people their idiots when they're being idiots, and doing it in a way that they may stop being a idiot and fix the problem because you give them a way out of their dumb move. Good politicians do this. Some of city council includes good politicians. OK, maybe just Alex Cullen and Clive Doucet (he stepped back and apologized for speaking out against the mayor last week, and I respect him for it, even though he was in the right at that time). Still, they are out there.
Here's good news I just found out today - the Natural Step, an organization closely linked to the Master's I'm doing here, is working with the City of Ottawa on an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan. If they're successful, the city will see the value of public transit and how integral it is to sustainability, and another strike won't happen.
Anyhow, I hope the strike ends soon. All the best,
Adrian
Back for the first time in a while. Some down time (well, not really... but making it anyway).
I have been enjoying my time biking around in the not-so-cold of Karlskrona, not having to depend on the bus system, but having it as an option. Neither can be said of Ottawa these days, and I feel for those stuck because of the transit strike. It is my belief that transit should be considered an essential service, and this strike should've lasted all of three or four days before mediators and an independent arbitrator brought it to a close. Both sides are making Ottawans suffer.
One of my contacts back home recently made his views on the strike known to many people; he sent them out to all of the city councillors, the mayor and a mailing list. His approach was, well... undiplomatic? Let's just say that I could picture throbbing veins either in his neck or his forehead while writing it.
There's an approach we learn here which I had learned before (I remember discussing it in Gr. 11 gym class) but never had a name for - our program calls it non-violent communication (to me, it's a form of diplomacy). Not rocket-science, but so often forgotten when trying to win others over. Basically, framing arguments from the "I think that..." or "I feel that..." perspective, so the other side of the argument isn't as defensive.
It wouldn't be fair or right for me to post his message or say his name. But I can probably explain a bit more about communication skills and non-violent communication (and my own opinion of the bus strike, and my current, early perspective on the state of cities and municipalities in Sweden) through my response to my contact. See the message I sent him below (in almost its entirety; only pleasantries and statements superfluous to the argument have been removed).
______________________________________
Hey,
I am impressed with the amount of time you have taken on this issue. We need more people to hold city council to task, especially when they have been in the wrong, as they have been on the strike.
In Sweden, municipalities are really strong and own loads of stuff - district heating plants, transit companies, etc. They are really good at making money outside of tax revenue! Different model, and I think there's a lot more trust in government here (as is evidenced by your message).
While I agree with your assessments, I don't think that your approach has been the most productive means of getting your point across. Were I sitting in the seat of the councillors, particularly those suburban/rural councillors that are on Larry's side, I would probably react by not responding to your message, and perhaps not reading it beyond where the anger and the insults begin. I don't think the councillors are retarded monkeys; I think that those that agree with Mayor O'Brien (shudder - still can't believe Ottawans did that) are making a huge mistake, and making the citizens of Ottawa suffer unnecessarily. They may be doing it out of malice, or poor social skills and poor political skills and acumen, but idiocy isn't the problem. Even if this is the case, name calling will not change things - they're far more likely to go on the defensive and defend their actions, no matter how ridiculous those actions are. No doubt they have many people calling them out on this, and they're especially stressed at this time - that enough should get them back to the table.
Politics and diplomacy is about telling people their idiots when they're being idiots, and doing it in a way that they may stop being a idiot and fix the problem because you give them a way out of their dumb move. Good politicians do this. Some of city council includes good politicians. OK, maybe just Alex Cullen and Clive Doucet (he stepped back and apologized for speaking out against the mayor last week, and I respect him for it, even though he was in the right at that time). Still, they are out there.
Here's good news I just found out today - the Natural Step, an organization closely linked to the Master's I'm doing here, is working with the City of Ottawa on an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan. If they're successful, the city will see the value of public transit and how integral it is to sustainability, and another strike won't happen.
Anyhow, I hope the strike ends soon. All the best,
Adrian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)