Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Gloria Dickie reports on the UN's latest Emissions Gap report which shows that we're headed for a climate disturbance of 3.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century based on our current policy trajectory. Madeleine Cuff points out the reality that carbon pollution is now increasing more than it was before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, while John Timmer notes that we're a mere four years away from breaching the Paris temperature target. 

- Meanwhile, Jonathan Watts discusses the conflicting options in trying to motivate people to action - with distress seeming to serve as a better motivator than (implausible) hope. 

- Emma McIntosh explains how Doug Ford is planning to rush massive highway developments while destroying bike infrastructure, while Max Fawcett points out the absolute idiocy of doing so. And Alex Himelfarb discusses how the right's "common sense" con is intended to avoid any application of logic or evidence to antisocial policy positions which would never survive reasonable analysis. 

- Cloe Logan writes about the reality that consumer products are getting less durable and sustainable due to manufacturers' incentive to keep people replacing them - while pointing out that better information would at least allow people to determine how long their purchases will last. 

- Finally, DT Cochrane discusses how Canada's discussion of inflation (and the Bank of Canada's means of addressing it) has almost completely missed the cause and effect arising from corporate profiteering - meaning that even the lowering of interest rates now will leave people with eroded purchasing power. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Andrew Dessler writes about the non-linear nature of the environmental effects of carbon pollution - with the result that we're seeing cascading effects with each additional increase in temperature. And Sarah Kaplan discusses how we should be recognizing extreme weather events as alarm bells reflecting a climate breakdown in progress.

- The Guardian's editorial board writes that we can't afford to put our living environment on the back burner while perpetually finding other supposedly more immediate issues to prioritize first. And Margaret Shkimba points out the need for leaders to match rhetoric with action (though I'd argue there's a need to focus far more on policy decisions rather than personal theatre).

- Jonathan Freedland discusses how the oil sector has managed to control the public conversation about climate policy in order to keep lining its pockets at the expense of our planet. And Drew Anderson reports on yet another unconscionable UCP subsidy to dirty energy, this time paying $14 million in public money to make up for rent which oil barons couldn't be bothered to pay to landowners.  

- Lana Payne questions why the Bank of Canada is continuing to punish workers with increased interest rates and suppressed wages when there's little reason to believe that will do anything to limit inflation based on corporate profiteering. 

- Finally, David Macdonald and Ricardo Tranjan chart how much Canadian workers need to earn in order to afford housing - and how consistent a pattern there is of rents far exceeding what people can afford. 

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Heidi Ledford discusses new research which is helping to identify genetic risk factors for long COVID - though the fact that new COVID-19 variants are being allowed to run wild while that work is in its infancy means that people will be exposed to readily-avoidable suffering. Jennifer La Grassa and Lauren Pelley reports on the National Advisory Committee on Immunization's recommendation that Canadians continue to be vaccinated. But the announcement that university-based wastewater monitoring is being abandoned - leaving any continued reporting to politically-controlled bodies which have shown they're more interested in normalizing transmission than protecting public health - makes it all too likely that Saskatchewan residents will fail to do what they can and should to protect their communities. 

- Patrick Rail interviews Armine Yalnizyan about the grim reality that the Bank of Canada is looking to raise interest rates for the sole purpose of causing pain to the general public. 

- Arielle Samuelson and Emily Atkin write about the oil companies laughing all the way to the bank while the world burns due to the use of their products. Melissa Rossi discusses the eminently-desirable principle underlying 15-minute cities which has been subjected to ritual denunciation as a fossil fuel propaganda point. And Rosa Saba reports on the work being done to turn the availability of outdoor patio space into a normal expectation rather than a perceived aberration. 

- Finally, Cory Doctorow discusses how U.S. Democrats shut off their greatest grassroots operation in modern history in favour of governance by triangulating establishmentarians - and how the result has been predictably disastrous both in terms of electoral outcomes and policy effects. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Fiona Harvey reports on Greta Thunberg's warning that a failure to stop burning fossil fuels amounts to a death sentence for people living in poverty - which would be a much more powerful message if the denial of environmental disaster and devaluation of human life weren't core principles of our corporatist governance model. Andrew Fanning and Jason Hickey model what climate reparations would look like if the wealthiest countries compensated the rest of the world for the cost of their carbon pollution. And Gary Mason discusses how Canada's response to the climate crisis would be different if we had any notion of sacrifice. 

- Geoffrey Lean is hopeful that a new treaty being reached by governments and backed by some business interests will result in an end to plastic pollution. But we should be wary of temporary corporate concessions intended to keep dirty business as usual going as long as possible - with Shell's reversal of plans for even tiny fossil fuel production cuts serving as just the latest example. 

- John Quiggin points out how Australia's grocery store duopoly has used the cover of inflation to goose its profit margins. And Holly McKenzie-Sutter reports on the Bank of Canada's needed recognition that corporate pricing and exploitation are at the root of Canada's inflation as well - though as Jim Stanford notes, it isn't following that to its logical conclusion by using tools less focused on reducing work and wages. 

- Finally, the Center for Working-Class Politics discusses how it's possible to defeat the populist right by making a priority of genuinely challenging corporate power and meeting the needs of the working class. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Eric Reinhart discusses the importance of approaching public health from a collective perspective, rather than presuming health is simply a matter of individual-level choices. And Michael Hiltzik highlights the usual combination of dishonesty and ignorance behind yet another set of talking points intended to undermine masking as a protection against COVID-19 and other communicable diseases.

- Daphne Bramham writes about the dangers of allowing the corporate sector to take over health care, while Alex Ballingall and Raisa Patel report on the apparent big pharma takeover of Canadian prescription drug policy. And Ryan Gabrielson and J. David McSwane offer an appalling look at what happens when for-profit healthcare meets a religious-based immunity from regulation. 

- Armine Yalnizyan writes that the most important headwind facing Canada's economy is a lack of affordability, rather than any concern about inflation. But Peter Armstrong reports that the Bank of Canada is bent on hiking interest rates with the theoretical intention of meeting inflation targets - no matter how much damage it does to people, and how little it accomplishes as corporations continue to profiteer.

- Stefan Gossling and Andreas Humpe examine the carbon emissions of the wealthy, and find that millionaires alone stand to eat up over two-thirds of humanity's remaining carbon budget by 2050.

- Finally, Don Braid discusses how Danielle Smith and the UCP are determined to squelch any criticism of their plans to take pensions and policing under politicized provincial control. And Howard Leeson writes that the spin being used to push Scott Moe's plan to expel the RCMP from Saskatchewan (again in favour of a provincially-controlled police service) doesn't hold water.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Angella MacEwen discusses how the Bank of Canada is fighting a class war on the side of the rich by pushing to reduce employment and wages while corporations continue to profiteer off the backs of the public. And Armine Yalnizyan interviews Tiff Macklem about the choice to do so. 

- Jason Warick interviews Tony Dagnone about the need for Saskatchewan Health Authority board members to stand up for medicare rather than running interference for the Moe government's destruction of health services, while Mickey Djuric reports on the severe understaffing issues facing the province. Kyra Markov reports on another deadly week of COVID-19 in Alberta - both as a direct cause of death, and as an intolerable strain on an already-overloaded health care system. And Tina Yazdani reports on the Ontario family doctors who are abandoning patients due to their own intolerable workloads. 

- John-Baptiste Oduor interviews Tommie Shelby about the case for abolishing prisons, including the connections between incarceration and other means of oppressing vulnerable groups. But Thom Hartmann writes that the U.S. Supreme Court is going out of its way to facilitate and stoke bigotry. 

- Finally, Noah Smith is right to recognize the value of public utilities to both ensure a reliable power supply and support large-scale research - though it's sad that he has to see the concept as "wacky" rather than self-evidently desirable. 

Thursday Morning Links

 This and that for your Thursday reading.

 - Patrick Brethour discusses houw the effects of the coronavirus pandemic have been anything but fairly or equally distributed. And Katherine Scott highlights how the effect has been to undo decades of already-slow progress in improving the conditions of single mothers.

- Don Pittis discusses how New Jersey's wealth tax provides an example for us to follow. And Andrew Jackson makes the case (PDF) for a wealth tax in Canada:

It is both reasonable and practical to add a wealth tax to our current arsenal of fair taxes, to be levied at a low but rising rate on very large fortunes. The aim would not be just, or even most importantly, to raise extra revenues, though these would add to fiscal capacity, but to prevent the accumulation of huge fortunes which give the ultra rich far too much power and undermine democracy. The ongoing shift of taxes away from labour to the owners of capital which undermines the fiscal base needed to support social programs and public services and exacerbates rising inequality must be reversed. While there are some difficulties in levying an annual wealth tax, it is ultimately a feasible political choice and a matter of political will.

- Stephen Gordon and Christopher Ragan discuss the prospect of updating the Bank of Canada's mandate both to better measure inflation, and to account for additional factors including employment. And Marc Lee points out the folly of obsessing over the federal debt in the midst of a pandemic.

- The Star's editorial board writes that it's time to address homelessness by building long-term housing, not only shelters. And Ashwin Rodrigues notes that any effort to rely on private-sector landlords to provide housing will need to contend with new gig-economy structures designed to facilitate evictions.

- Finally, Russell Smith points out how algorithms shape what we read online - including by directing readers away from anything that doesn't fit an arbitrary conception of a significant topic.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Scott Aquanno writes about the role the Bank of Canada has played so far in responding to COVID-19, while also recognizing that a new public bank could and should do far more to ensure we invest in a sustainable economy rather than plunging into austerity.

- Paul Krugman discusses the disconnect between the dire reality facing most of the U.S.' population, and the partial rebound of stock prices based on the expectation that it will still be possible to extract wealth from the general public. Tracey Tully writes about the continued spread of massive food bank queues in states with no lack of overall wealth. And Jonathan Mijs points out some of the lessons about inequality which are highlighted by the coronavirus crisis.

- PressProgress exposes Amazon's lobbying of the federal government before it was handed logistical responsibility which would normally have been kept within the public sector.

- Madeleine Cummings reports on the plight of migrant workers who don't share the access to health care that keeps other Canadians comparatively healthy in the midst of a pandemic.

- Finally, Louise Kyle writes that any vaccine for COVID-19 needs to be treated as a public good available to all, rather than a profit centre meted out only to people who can pay big pharma's prices. And Carl Bergstrom and Natalie Dean explain why a vaccine is ultimately the only viable option to reach herd immunity by pointing out the ramifications of allowing a deadly disease to run rampant. 

Deep thought

Much as I generally promote open access to information, I'm starting to come around to the idea that the Cons should feel free to apply a "national security" exemption to pretty much any information about their decision-making. After all, if anybody around the globe knew exactly what they're dealing with in the Cons, Canada would all too likely be a second-rate protectorate of Burundi within a week.

On transferable skills

Stephen Gordon is at least moderately panicked about the less-than-surprising news that some Lib operatives tried to recruit Mark Carney to serve as the party's national leader - and there may be worse to come. But I'll argue that there's far less to be concerned about than Gordon, Mike Moffatt and others are suggesting.

At the outset, I presume it's fairly uncontroversial that we have numerous important positions of influence intended to be filled by experts motivated by the public good.

Gordon and Moffatt seem to place the Bank of Canada on a particularly high pedestal, which may be how they'd distinguish Carney's role from others. But to my mind, the difference between Carney's position and the role of independent commissioners, judges, and public servants with decision-making authority is one of degree rather than kind. Would we genuinely be any more comfortable with, say, courts being motivated by outside considerations, rather than maintaining the credibility that comes only from being seen as a fair and neutral body populated by some of the best-informed individuals in a particular subject area?

At the same time, though, political parties have a natural and reasonable incentive to want to recruit the strongest possible candidates. And the skills and expertise which result in an individual being promoted to a prominent position of public service are likely to translate at least somewhat into the political realm - making the individuals in those positions into appealing prospects for any party seeking to develop the strongest possible organization, both for the purpose of pursuing power and for the purpose of governing well.

Based on that fact alone, I consider it preposterous to blame the Lib insiders who tried to recruit Carney into their fold. But what about his response, which indeed seems to have fallen somewhat short of "don't even talk to me, you icky partisan shills"?

Well, there too I'd think Gordon and Moffatt are making an unreasonable value judgment. In effect, their view seems to be that an even an individual with nothing but the best of intentions who occupies a neutral decision-making position based on expertise and experience isn't allowed to compare non-partisan and partisan means to pursue the public good.

That might seem to make sense based on the cynicism so many are working to foster in analyzing our democratic system. But in practice, such a dividing line serves to ensure that some of the individuals most capable of bettering that system are precluded from contributing to it.

As it happens, Carney ultimately chose the view that he could have more influence staying in the realm of independent policy-making. But I hardly think that any willingness to consider whether that was true should be held against him.

To be fair, there is a valid point to be made about transparency within an institution whose role may affect political interests - in effect, that there should be some reporting of the type of political involvement under consideration by people in positions like Carney's so that decisions can be better analyzed. But that reporting would have to be coupled with recognition that it would be highly unusual for anybody in such a position to completely lack political views and connections - such that we shouldn't see some actual or potential partisanship as an obstacle to making fair decisions.

Because ultimately, elected decision-makers are (and should be) the ones to set the broader policy goals which define the roles of independent officers. And the more we accept the claim that an interest in party politics is somehow incompatible with public service or acceptable decision-making, the more we'll have to complain about when it's time to evaluate the people who do work in the political sphere.

Update: Dan Gardner makes much the same point.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Jim Stanford reviews the effect of NAFTA (and associated corporatist policy choices) on Canada's economy:

Quantity of exports: In the mid-1980s, before Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan inked their deal, Canada’s exports to the United States accounted for 19 per cent of Canadian GDP. Today, they account for 19 per cent of Canadian GDP. Any boost to exports from the deal was temporary, and has since been completely reversed.

Composition of exports: In the mid-1980s, most of Canada’s exports to the U.S. consisted of relatively sophisticated manufactured goods (including automobiles, electronics and machinery). Today, most of our southbound exports consist of unprocessed or barely processed primary and resource products.

U.S. market: In the mid-1980s, 19 per cent of all U.S. imports came from Canada. Today, our share of their imports is just 14 per cent. So much for “special access.” Yet, we still rely on the U.S. for 75 per cent of all our export sales – just as high as before the deal.

Productivity: In the mid-1980s, average productivity in Canadian businesses equalled 90 per cent of U.S. levels. Free-trade advocates predicted that continental integration would eliminate that gap – but we’ve gone backward, and fast. Today, our productivity is just 72 per cent of U.S. levels.

Incomes: Proponents also promised that productivity gains from free trade would translate into higher incomes. There’s been no productivity dividend, and no income growth, either. In fact, last year’s median family incomes, adjusted for inflation, were exactly the same as in 1980 – not a dollar of income growth over the whole period.

In short, it’s hard to find any concrete economic evidence whatsoever that this historic deal actually helped Canada.

- Meanwhile, Murray Dobbin wonders whether Justin Trudeau has any intention of recognizing any weaknesses in the Libs' policy choices while presenting himself as a candidate of change. And Marc Lavoie and Mario Seccareccia make abundantly clear that the Bank of Canada isn't interested in learning from false assumptions about the relationship between inflation rates and growth.

- It's a tough contest as to which story is most emblematic of the Cons' stay in government: a deliberate choice to neglect public infrastructure until it can be sold off, or reckless public service cuts followed by lies going all the way to Stephen Harper to try to insulate the Cons from their choices.

- Finally, Don Braid laments the lack of commitment to access to information from the Cons and other Canadian governments. And no, a federal pilot project limited to fee-for-service online request submissions doesn't offer any particular reason for reassurance.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Yes, it's alarming that the Cons are eliminating environmental assessments on a huge number of projects. But even more worrisome is the complete lack of a connection between the basis for the exclusion and the possible environmental impacts:

Ottawa is also walking away from conducting assessments on various agricultural and municipal drainage works, log-handling facilities, small-craft harbour and marina development and expansion, the sinking of ex-warships as artificial reefs, the disposal of dredged material, and a 73-hectare mixed-use development on Tsawwassen First Nation lands.

Under the new legislation, BC Hydro also no longer requires a federal assessment for replacement of its John Hart Generating Station near Campbell River on Vancouver Island because the project won’t increase the generating capacity by more than 50 per cent or 200 megawatts. No provincial assessment applies, either.

Now, it would seem obvious enough that the number of megawatts added by a project won't necessarily correlate to its environmental impact. Which means that the Cons' move to limit assessment based on project size rather than actual need will only encourage the development of a large number of dirty, small-scale projects.

- Barbara Yaffe is right to note that the NDP is doing just fine consolidating its national strength under Tom Mulcair. But she's far too willing to buy the Cons' spin about Mulcair's environmental message - which is in fact far closer to the views of Canadians than the Cons' determination to put the oil industry's profits over public health and safety.

- The CLC highlights the positive effect of unions on wages in Saskatchewan:

On average, unionized workers earned $5.28 per hour more than non-union employees. That union advantage translated into more than $26 million more every week paid into the provincial economy to support businesses and community services.

- Meanwhile, Tom Graham notes that the Sask Party's focus on privatization and corporate development only looks to increase costs to the province.

- And finally, Erin Weir suggests expanding the Bank of Canada's mandate to maximize employment and bolster economic stability, rather than being limited solely to addressing inflation targets.

Deep thought

I for one think this would be an excellent time to focus on the economy. Over to you, Mark Carney.

Monday Morning Links

- For those who missed La Presse's brilliant take on the Harper Cons, here's Phillipe Gohier's translation:

The controversy surrounding the terms of the census is typical of the pillaging the conservatives have engaged in since coming to power. Not only is their behaviour dictated by simplistic ideology, the Conservatives impose their politics while displaying a exceptional degree of incompetence.
...
Before this government does even more harm to the institution that is the government of Canada, the intelligent people within the federal cabinet have a duty to rise up and stop the pillaging. Otherwise, the Harper government may be remembered as one of the most incompetent and harmful governments this country has ever known.

Unfortunately, it's not clear what "intelligent people within the federal cabinet" the editorial could be referring to. Which means that it'll fall to those of us outside Harper's control to bring about the change Canada needs.

- Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail reports that the order to gut the census came from Stephen Harper himself based on nothing more than vintage tea-party anger at the concept of governments having accurate information on which to base decisions. And the observation that Harper considered doing away with a mandatory short form as well raises the question: would he have taken that step too if he didn't hope for population shifts to work to his party's political advantage?

- Rick Salutin nicely encapsulates the conservative view of government by highlighting its affinity for the "fear sector":

The (prison and security sectors) aren’t as cost-beneficial as the military. They don’t make much to sell to the rest of the world, or generate social benefits. But deduct the impact of all three from the U.S. economy, and from its employment stats (including people in the armed forces or jail), and that mighty economic engine would be a holey mess.

The Harper government is clearly impressed. They don’t seem to mind big government, if they can tax and spend in the fear sector. So they’ve expanded our military budget and just announced a $9-billion (or maybe $16-billion) purchase of 65 U.S. jets we’ll have to find some use for. They’re increasing the prison population through U.S.-style sentencing laws and planning “major construction initiatives” that will boost (sorry) corrections costs by 43 per cent. On homeland security, there’s that amazing $1.2-billion spent at the G20.

But it’s a hard sell. Canadians will have to be persuaded to shift more money from a stretched health-care system to the fear sector. The benefits here aren’t as obvious. For buying those jets, all our firms get is the right to bid on U.S contracts. Lotsa luck. Mostly, though, there’s the fear culture that you need for a fear sector.

- Finally, Erin points out that the Bank of Canada's moves to push up interest rates look to be based on a theory that makes the confidence fairy look like a marvel of rational economics:

By my count, the (latest Monetary Policy Report) expresses concern eight separate times about anemic business investment. It acknowledges the point I have been making about capacity utilization, suggesting that business investment “is likely to remain sluggish relative to previous recoveries, owing to high levels of unused industrial capacity”.

But then the MPR’s tune changes: “Nevertheless, business investment is expected to increase to levels consistent with previous recoveries, driven by the need to expand capacity and to increase productivity in a more competitive international environment”. Mark Carney repeated this language in his remarks.

The two statements seem almost contradictory. Don’t the “high levels of unused industrial capacity” obviate “the need to expand capacity”?
...
The central bank’s mystifying words may simply provide cover for its actions. Two days before the MPR, the Bank of Canada raised interest rates again. This policy encourages cash accumulation and discourages investment in three ways.

First, higher interest rates mean higher returns on cash balances and higher costs on loans to finance investment. Second, higher interest rates diminish the possibility of inflation eroding the value of cash balances and hence the incentive to invest in physical assets as a hedge against inflation. Third, higher interest rates push up the exchange rate, which increases the relative value of Canadian cash holdings but reduces the competitiveness of Canadian production and exports.

The Bank of Canada is serving up anti-investment policy with a side of pro-investment rhetoric.