Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Umair Haque writes about the implications of facing a deliberate decline in both environmental and economic well-being for the sole purpose of facilitating the short-term extraction of profits. Daniel Gilbert, Todd Frankel and Joseph Menn report on Silicon Valley Bank's choice to discard any risk modeling that accurately pointed out the dangers of its lending strategy before its collapse. Bryce Covert weighs in on how the Federal Reserve's determination to squelch economic and wage growth (but not the profiteering which is the actual cause of inflation) represents little more than class war against workers. And Peter Hannam reports on a study showing how Australia's tax system has been set up to make taxpayers fund inheritances for the super-wealthy at the expense of social programs and benefits. 

- Zia Weise and Federica Di Sario report on Antonio Gutteres' call for wealthy countries to accelerate their commitments to stop emitting carbon pollution. Geoff Dembicki's Senate testimony highlights the need to investigate the fraud of the fossil fuel sector in sowing doubt about science that it knew to be accurate. Yves Smith discusses why market fundamentalism is utterly incompatible with averting climate breakdown. And Stephanie Roe offers a reminder of the ways to help at the individual level - even if they need to be paired with major systemic progress. 

- Euan Thomson and Petra Schulz comment on Pierre Poilievre's rage farming in the face of any empirical reality when it comes to harm reduction - though of course the principle applies to all kinds of policy areas. 

- Shawn Micallef points out John Tory's grim legacy as the mayor of Toronto bent on impeding any social progress in the name of austerity while still harming the city's finances in the process. And Mario Canseco discusses new polling showing that a strong majority of Canadians favour 15-minute cities and the underlying principle of accessible communities (even in the face of the petro-right's rage machine). 

- Finally, John Sewell writes that anybody actually wanting to reduce crime (rather than stoking an environment of fear) should be working on ensuring people have the necessities of life, rather than pouring money into arming police forces. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jessica Corbett writes that Earth's atmospheric carbon concentration has reached levels not seen in 80,000 years, while Jonathan Watts reports on a new study showing that climate change may be pushing our planet toward a "hothouse" state which might threaten human life. The Daily Mail reports that the California city of Imperial recently saw the hottest rain recorded on record. And Simon Lewis writes that while it's not too late to avert the worst possible climate catastrophe, we need large-scale and immediate political change to do so.

- Meanwhile, Norm Farrell compares the virtually-nonexistent punishment for the corporate sector's deliberate environmental destruction to the lock-'em-up attitude being displayed toward environmental activists.

- The Economist's Bartleby writes about the constant stress facing American workers.

- Tuomas Maraja highlights the psychological benefits of receiving a basic income rather than heavily conditional welfare payments. Jessie Golem discusses the disappointment of having the prospect of financial security stripped away by Doug Ford's PCs out of nothing but contempt for people facing poverty and precarity. And Stephen Tweedale wonders whether the better path toward a basic income involves incremental benefits for everybody, rather than small-scale pilot programs which exclude most citizens.

- Finally, in the wake of John Tory's promise to use new strongman powers to impose austerity on Toronto, Heather Mallick offers a reminder that tax revenue is vital for a population to thrive.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Tom Parkin discusses how the growing pile of Liberal disappointments is creating opportunities for Canada's opposition parties.

- Julie Ireton reports on the continued problems being caused by the federal government's Phoenix privatization debacle - including by forcing retirement-eligible employees to hold on until their retirement income comes into focus. And Mike De Souza reports on the National Energy Board's focus on stifling any flow of accurate information to the public in the name of resource-sector corporate profits.

- Rupert Neate highlights how the extravagant bonuses paid to property developers could provide housing for large numbers of people who actually need it. And Yogi Achyara discusses Toronto's need for increased shelter resources (rather than the cuts being imposed by John Tory and right-wing councillors).

- Don Giesbrecht wonders why Canada is allowing itself to fall behind its international peers in investing in child care.

- And finally, Kendall Latimer reports on the continued fallout from the Saskatchewan Party's decision to trash STC - with rural residents having to reconsider whether they can afford to be trapped without reliable transportation, while Brad Wall's minions continue to pretend that private operators will materialize out of nowhere.

The waiting game

Sun Media reports that the most prominent provincial figure who seemed likely to oppose MMP in Ontario is still sitting on the fence. And John Tory's continued indecision looks to be a good sign for the Yes side:

The man who would lead Ontario is seldom at a loss for words when asked what he plans to do...

But the leader of the Progressive Conservatives said he’s not sure yet what he thinks about the referendum question on the provincial ballot Oct. 10.

Voters will be asked if they want to change the electoral system to one that would reward political parties based on their share of the popular vote.

“I don’t know,” said the usually decisive Tory when asked when he or his party will adopt a position on the referendum question that would boost smaller parties.

Of course, it seems entirely likely that Tory will eventually wind up on the wrong side of the issue. But it looks like he's biding his time until he can claim that his problem is with the specific wording drafted by the McGuinty government rather than the conclusions of the Citizens' Assembly...which would still bode well for the Yes side's chances for a few reasons.

First, the interim in which Tory remains undecided figures to offer a significant head start to backers of electoral reform: presumably the No side will receive both less media attention and less public credence as long as there isn't a single party leader willing to speak on its behalf.

Second, if Tory is indeed looking to focus his attacks narrowly, that would seem to also suggest that Ontario's Cons aren't spoiling for a fight against PR on principle - which would in turn limit the range of arguments that the No side will be able to make without appearing splintered.

And finally, if Tory is indeed planning to focus future criticism primarily at the government's wording, then the Libs are in turn likely to try to defend their own actions. And that should eliminate much of the risk that the Libs and Cons could work together to try to preserve a first-past-the-post system.

That said, it's still far from sure that MMP will be able to clear the arbitrarily high hurdles set up by McGuinty. But it looks like the voting thresholds, not any particularly forceful opposition, will pose the greatest difficulty for electoral reform.

On minor contributions

The Star points out just how little benefit there is to be had in relying on voluntary contributions to a government end:

(W)hile (Greg Sorbara) still likes to blame former Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris for leaving Ontario's finances in a mess after eight years of tax cuts, there is some money that keeps rolling into provincial coffers year after year thanks to Harris and his successor, former finance minister Ernie Eves.

It's the Ontario Opportunities Fund, where a few Ontarians – and few they are – contribute all or part of their tax refunds to defray the provincial deficit. There's a box to tick on the last page of the annual income tax form.

Last year, the fund raised $121,202 – not even enough to pay the $157,633 annual salary of a cabinet minister...

The fund was launched in 1996, the year after Harris surged to power with his Common Sense Revolution promising to cut taxes and slash government spending. In the end, that political formula left the province with an annual deficit of more than $5 billion when the Liberals took power in 2003.

Perhaps fittingly, that's also the year Ontario taxpayers – no doubt feeling flush with cash from all those tax cuts – ponied up $254,419 to the opportunities fund, a peak it hasn't reached since.

And lest anybody accuse Ontario's Cons of having figured out how insignificant any voluntary contributions would be:

(T)he opportunities fund could bring in bigger contributions if the Liberals did more to make taxpayers aware of it, says Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory.

"If they bothered to promote it at all they could probably get the number up quite significantly and that would be good for Ontario as well."

In fairness, the fund certainly can't be seen as a bad idea in principle, and its participants deserve plenty of credit for their willingness to help out Ontario's financial situation. But the failure of the fund to have more than the slightest impact on the province as a whole should cast all the more doubt on any claim that voluntary participation is likely to be a viable means to any important end.

Meanwhile, it also speaks volumes about Tory's mindset that he apparently hasn't learned anything from the fund's minor contribution under the Harris regime as well as the current one. Even if it's indeed true that the fund could be brought back to its original numbers through more consistent reminders, it's entirely likely that that amount could be recovered many times over by even a relatively minor crackdown on back taxes (or choice not to extend a single random tax benefit as Tory's federal cousins seem so eager to do). Which means that for a province looking to eliminate its deficit, the most important step has to be to empower a government with a better sense of proportion than Ontario's Cons past or present.