Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jeremy Appel reports on a new study showing that Alberta has both avoided developing the capacity to manage tailings pond spills, and misinformed the public to minimize the harm from the oil and gas sector based on the data it actually has. And John Woodside notes that after over nine years in power, Justin Trudeau still hasn't bothered to set caps on fossil fuel extraction emissions. 

- Barb Mayes Boustead discusses what "normal" now means in the midst of a collapsing climate. Damian Carrington reports on a new study showing how the climate crisis is undermining the Earth's water cycle. Darrin Qualman warns that Canada's Prairies may face a grim future as hotter temperatures and increased drought exacerbate the already-volatile nature of agriculture. But Jeremiah Budin notes that agrivoltaic solar panels may help to make farming more productive in addition to generating clean energy, while Wade Thorhaug discusses how locally-supplied public markets can enhance food security. 

- Prem Sikka discusses how concentrated wealth and power are corrupting democracy in the UK and elsewhere. George Lakoff and Gil Duran offer their New Year's resolutions to respond to the second Trump administration and its corporate backers. And Gene Monin writes about the need for Canada to stand up to Trump rather than allowing itself to be bullied into acquiescence. 

- Finally, Taylor Lorenz exposes how Instagram has already gone out of its way to suppress LGBTQ-related content. And Robert Booth reports on Facebook's decision to eliminate fact-checkers while promoting (and lobbying to spread) hate speech. 

Sunday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Donald Savoie's analysis of politics in the U.K. is no less applicable at home:

We ought not to be surprised that voters today are less inclined to identify themselves (with parties) as their parents tended to do. They have little reason to do so given that political parties are increasingly election-day machines. This has important implications for representative democracies. When we move away from political parties to pursue more narrow interests, the connection between citizens and government is further fragmented. It also speaks to the rise of more "personalised realities".

The problem is that the economic and political interests of the political, intellectual and economic elites are heard at the expense of the broader community. The power and influence of political parties and even formal policymaking processes have given way to powerful individuals and actor-centred institutionalism. This, in turn, has made it virtually impossible for many elected representatives, let alone ordinary citizens, to play any meaningful role in shaping public policies or even holding government to account. We ought not to be surprised at voter apathy and the growing cynicism about government in society.

- From the "how to use Twitter" department: Edmonton-Leduc NDP candidate Artem Medvedev has responded to a request for more ideas (instead of negativity) with a steady stream of policy proposals.

- In contrast, from the "how to abuse Twitter" department, the Libs are apparently trying to draw nonexistent connections between the deliberately nonpartisan CAPP and the explicitly partisan (at least in the sense of directly challenging the Cons) Unseat Harper site. Which isn't to say I disagree with the aims of the latter in the least - but surely it's worth being honest about who's actually part of what project.

- And finally, Dr. Dawg notes that any commentary about police abuses is apparently off limits for publicly-displayed art in Ottawa. Place your bets as to whether Canada's Speech Warriors (TM) choose to ignore the suppression of speech entirely, or justify it based on their fondness for abuses of authority as long as it's directed toward people they don't like.

Voting patterns

It's understandable that most of the talk about House of Commons votes today has focused on the Cons' attempt to start clawing away at reproductive rights. (For commentary on C-484, see here, here, here, here and here, among others. And no, I won't try to defend Peter Stoffer's vote on what couldn't be a more obvious attempt by the anti-choice crowd to get a foot in the door under Canadian law.)

But another noteworthy vote seems to have taken place largely without comment yesterday, as the Libs voted with the Cons against a motion to correct the film industry censorship provisions of Bill C-10 - with the excuse that the Senate which has already shown its willingness to be pushed around by Deceivin' Stephen should be counted on to fix the problem. Which, combined with the Libs' consistent complicity in the Cons' agenda since last fall, can only leave Canadian voters to consider the likelihood that they're better off not putting votes in the hands of a party which doesn't seem interested in using them to support the priorities it claims to care about.