Comment for Cross-Country Check-up: What do Canadians want and expect from a political leader?

Thought I'd add my two cents to this. What makes a great political leader?

I can't speak for other Canadians, but I have several things that I look for in a political leader, and I hope that others agree. I have seen some great comments here about charisma, honesty and integrity, and particularly about us demanding more of ourselves so that we can do the same for our leaders.

I wanted to add the following things that I'm looking for in a leader:

- A political leader is a manager of the most important organization there is in this country, a decision-maker, and a communicator (and I don't mean just someone who's good at sound bites, but actually listening to others and accepting good ideas).

- Someone who encourages others to collect the best available evidence, and will make decisions based on this evidence;
- Someone who listens to and engages with their colleagues and their constituents; and
- Someone who is willing to take tough and sometimes unpopular decisions and explain their reasons.

I hear about people who hate people who change their mind. I see no problem with changing a decision, especially if the evidence shows that the previous choice was less beneficial to their constituents than the new direction.

More on Germany and the nuclear shut-down

Another chance to comment on the decision in Germany to shut down nuclear power, prompted by an article in Der Spiegel about "The Downside of Germany's Nuclear Phaseout".


Germany produced 46% of its electricity from coal in 2008 (and another 14% from natural gas). Nuclear is 23%. While I agree that there are a lot of problems with nuclear power - how many lives have been lost from it in operation in Germany? In the three accidents that have happened in the industry in Germany - the number is zero. Now how many people are killed annually from coal mining? From the pollution from coal power plants? What about the climate impacts of coal? Oddly, I can't find this (maybe I would if my German was better...) - but premature deaths from air pollution in Germany are estimated at 65,000.

While I agree that nuclear waste is not good, I think that the very real risks and impacts of coal must be the first thing tackled. Once coal is phased out, and gas, then nuclear should be addressed.

Germany's decision to close nuclear power plants

I am finding myself torn about the German government's decision to shutter all of their nuclear plants by 2021. Actually, no I'm not. I think it's the wrong decision. Here's why, as I posted on the http://www.350.org Facebook page.

Even if Germany replaces all of the nuclear with renewables, the nuclear that needn't have been shut down could provided the baseload power that could have lead to shutting coal. In 2008, Germany produced 46% of its electricity from coal - and 23% from nuclear (also, 14% natural gas, 6% wind, 4% hydro, 3% biomass, 2% waste and 1% solar PV).

So... what will replace the 23% of its electricity demand? And what of shutting the coal power down? Coal is the worst, most dangerous option (and not just on climate, but on a per MWh scale, too). The world and the environmental movement should be clamouring for coal to be shuttered first. Once we've done that, then we can target nuclear.

Thoughts? I'm aware that I'm courting controversy here.

Comment on a blog on: What’s car ownership really costing you?

I forget how I got there - probably through Twitter - but I found this good blog posting about the costs of car ownership. Had to make the following comment, particularly after a slightly misguided comment post.

Great article. Though I couldn’t get the edmunds.com link to work for my car (a Focus 2008 SE).

I’m 34 and bought my first car last year, for a move and a new job where I was told I need a car (on occasion, I do). I bought it with my savings from not owning a car before this. Prior to this, I lived in Ottawa, using a Vrtucar (a local version of Zipcar) for personal errands, because I had taxi chits for work travel, and got to work via public transit or bicycle. Now I’m in a smaller city with limited public transit (the closest drop point is about 800 yards from my office), no car share (density’s too low to create a business case for one) and much poorer snow clearing, so winter saw much more car usage – I think I drove 800 miles from November to March!!! My car has been a massive expense, but hopefully I can resell at a reasonable price when the opportunity presents itself.

Peter could not be more different from the other people writing on this. As someone who’s travelled a fair bit through the world (about 24 countries) there is much to learn and experience from other places. The variety of the USA provides opportunities to learn as well, but there’s much to gain from going to places like Amsterdam, Berlin, Delhi, Bangkok, Johannesburg, etc. as well. Peter – I didn’t get the sense Matthew’s a worrier, especially since he’s got a 7 year old that he hauls around on the bus or by foot. I’m sure you both believe in protecting your family – it’s just that you see different sources of risk (the car is one of our greatest sources of risk in day-to-day life – both in terms of health and finances). I also had a great community that I lived in while in downtown Ottawa, with terrific friends close by. In a more dense city, you’ve got a lot more people living close to you; it’s easier build your own community based on mutual interests as well as on geographic proximity, since there’s just more of you.

Jane Jacobs once said “The point of cities is multiplicity of choice.” I think that’s close – it may not be the ‘point’, but it’s definitely the outcome. And one of the best parts of that choice is the ability to choose your form of mobility. Suburbs (especially single-use suburbs) often aren’t designed to offer that.

Another rant

A friend was goading me on Facebook. This is my reply to him, edited for a wider language:

Re: lying scientists - There are real people on all sides. Some of the scientists are jerks, and exaggerate, and that needs to be watched too. I won't pretend otherwise.

That said, the likes of Rex Murphy and Margaret Wente and Lorne Gunter are, in my mind, going well beyond the realm of good taste in their cynicism on climate change. We've already seen the first impacts of anthropogenic climate change, and we can't just shut our eyes when massive typhoons that are virtually unfamiliar are hitting Australia every three years, when Iqaluit spends the month of December at 21C above their average, when the lodgepole pine is receding from my new home and heading northward so that it can survive because those lousy beetles are destroying them because, even when I moan about the cold, it's no longer cold enough to kill the beetles... the balance of evidence shows that it's already here. They're wrong, and for knowingly spouting their falsehoods, they should be in front of a judge for lying in a public forum or whatever we call it in this country (and which was recently upheld, thankfully).

But you're right, I shouldn't worry about us Canadians, while the Chinese are gonna mess it up for all of us. Except they are getting pushed towards cleaning things up, because environmental destruction domestically is the greatest threat to the existence of the Communist Party. The scariest part is if, when we do get our act in gear, we'll be buying our things from China, because they'll have taken the lead on the green economy. What if their obstructive position is all a ruse for them to gain advantage, and when they say, you know, that climate change thing, it's kind of a big deal, we'll sign a serious treaty, and, oh, by the way, how much will you pay us for the technology that we've developed to avoid it?

Canadians are still, on average, four times more polluting than the average Chinese person when it comes to greenhouse gases, even without much of the coal they've got. So while I disagree with China's outward do-nothing position, there's the smallest bit of validity to it. Not much; they have to get going now because they emit more on average than the average person, and about 3 times what the planet is able to assimilate, but their long-term emission reduction commitment on a percentage base should be less than ours (70% vs. 90%).

The science is there. The evidence is there. The threat is there. It's not the day to day slight temperature increases globally we should worry about, and I won't pretend we should. It's not the polar bears, either, for me. It's the extremes and what they'll do to humans, and a still increasing number of humans (luckily, that trend will soon end, and it's one of the places I'm positive about). I worry about the refugees from flooding in low-lying places like Bangladesh, Egypt, the Netherlands, the Mississippi Delta. From the forest fires just south of here, and in Australia, and California, and in the Mediterranean. I'm worried about food prices going up. Doesn't bother me, but when you're spending 60-70% of your income on food, and it goes up, you might just say "take off" to your tyrant of 30 years (Go Egypt!) only to realize that what would replace him won't be able to solve the problems immediately either. Though it'll likely be better than the tyrant.

Anyhow, I don't want to think too much about the problems either. I'd rather be one of the ones who are working on the solutions. I wouldn't have moved here if it wasn't to work on solutions. I guess while I'm cynical about the PETA types, and the corporate types, I'm generally not cynical about finding solutions. I think we can do it if we get the brightest brains thinking about it and working towards it, instead of wasting their time on useless pursuits.