On definitive statements

Following up on this post, I'll take a step back point out how Scott Moe's insistence on attacking any carbon price through the courts is only enshrining in Canadian jurisprudence - in both the majority and dissenting decisions - some of the points he's trying to soft-peddle for the climate denialists in his base.

Moe has just barely reached the point of being willing to acknowledge the existence of climate change in public in a sentence or two before trying to change the subject. But it's well worth pressing to see whether he'll admit facts were as uncontroverted in the Court of Appeal's decision (including though the best argument Moe could muster to claim climate change isn't a matter of national concern) as they are in the scientific community.

To start with, the basic facts of the global crisis were set out by the majority after being accepted by all parties - including Saskatchewan (italics in original, underlining added):

[15] The general character of the GHG phenomenon and the basic science of climate change are not contested by any of the participants in this Reference. In simplest terms, planet Earth absorbs energy from sunlight. When that energy is emitted, GHGs capture some of it. This slows the escape of such energy into space and, over time, heats the atmosphere and the surface of the earth. These higher temperatures disrupt global climate patterns.

[16] The broad contours of the impact of anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and of the nature of the climate change issue are summarized in Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers [Climate Change 2014]. It was prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], which was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. The IPCC, as described by John Moffet, Assistant Deputy Minister with Environment and Climate Change Canada, in his affidavit of October 25, 2018, is “the leading world body for assessing the most recent scientific, technical, and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to understanding climate change, its impacts and potential future risks, and possible response options”. Climate Change 2014 concludes as follows:

(a) “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems” (at 2).
(b) “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen” (at 2).
(c) “Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century” (emphasis in original, at 4).
(d) “Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions” (at 7).
(e) “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks” (at 8).
(f) “Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise” (emphasis in original, at 10).
(g) “Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development” (at 13).
(h) “Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). ...” (emphasis in original, at 17).

None of these conclusions were challenged or put in issue by the participants in this Reference.

And due to the position pushed by Moe, the majority decision also recognized the essential nature of both carbon pricing and multijurisdictional action in order to mount an effective response:

[147] What then of the idea of minimum national standards of price stringency for GHG emissions? Significantly, the factual record before the Court indicates that GHG pricing is not just part and parcel of an effective response to climate change. It indicates that GHG pricing is regarded as an essential aspect or element of the global effort to limit GHG emissions. The following unchallenged features of the record are noteworthy in this regard:

(a) “There is widespread international consensus that carbon pricing is a necessary measure, though not a sufficient measure, to achieve the global reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the Paris Agreement targets” (Moffet affidavit at para 46).
(b) “A well-designed carbon price is an indispensable part of a strategy for reducing emissions in an efficient way” (High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2017) at 1).
(c) “There is a widespread trend in favour of carbon pricing … Overall, 67 jurisdictions … are putting a price on carbon” (Moffet affidavit at para 49).
(d) “The existing literature is highly convergent in finding that carbon prices that have been implemented around the world have been successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions” (Nicholas Rivers affidavit affirmed October 5, 2018, at para 6(b)).

...
[156] All of this said, a good deal of the real significance of individual provincial failures to price GHG emissions to a minimum level plays out on a different plane. Climate change is a global problem and, accordingly, it calls for a global response. Such a response can only be effectively developed internationally by way of state-to-state negotiation and agreement. This, of course, is the story of the Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord, and the Paris Agreement. In participating in these international processes, Canada is expected to make national commitments with respect to GHG reduction or mitigation targets. Those commitments are self-evidently difficult for Canada, as a country, to meet if not all provincial jurisdictions are prepared to implement GHG emissions pricing regimes – regimes that, on the basis of the record before the Court, are an essential aspect of successful GHG mitigation plans. This is not to suggest Parliament must somehow enjoy a comprehensive treaty implementation power in relation to the GHG issue. But, it is to say that the international nature of the climate change problem necessarily colours and informs an assessment of the effects of a provincial failure to deal with GHG pricing.

What's more, even the dissent which was supposed to have justified the waste of resources in challenging a backstop carbon price includes some of the definitive acknowledgment of the importance of climate change that's glaringly lacking in Moe's public statements and official actions:

[236] GHGs are gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, the most prevalent of which is carbon dioxide [CO2]. GHGs are a significant contributor to climate change. For this reason, the parties and intervenors all agree that the governments of Canada and the Provinces must take steps to mitigate the anthropogenic emission of GHGs. Because none of the Attorneys General dispute the causative effect anthropogenic GHGs have on climate change or the attendant and existential necessity of mitigating anthropogenic GHG emissions, the proof or truth of these facts is not at issue. That is, they are proven and true.
...
[476] Before summarising our opinion, we would reiterate two points. First, we agree that all levels of government in Canada must take action to address climate change. The anthropogenic emission of GHGs is an issue of pressing concern to all Canadians and to the world. Second, Parliament has a number of constitutional powers, legislative means and administrative mechanisms at its disposal to achieve its objectives in this regard.

Needless to say, I'll be shocked if Moe is willing to publicly acknowledge the existential threat of climate change which he didn't even bother to dispute before the Court of Appeal. Instead, I'd fully expect him to keep pairing gross understatements of the threat of climate breakdown with disingenouous attempts to distract his audiences.

But if that's true, then Moe's loss in court has not only entrenched the federal carbon price, but enshrined in Canadian jurisprudence some of the truths about our climate crisis which he continues to deny. And Moe himself should only lose credibility for refusing to admit and act on the reality of climate change.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Lana Payne discusses why we can't afford another Harper government - but also why we shouldn't merely accept the Libs as the only alternative no matter how dishonestly and angrily they try to limit our choices. And Tom Parkin highlights the need to empower social movements to shape our political system.

- The Economist discusses the range of new ideas developing among progressive thinkers in contrast to the pattern of stagnation and reactionary messaging on the right.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the grim prospects of Ontarians with disabilities based on Doug Ford's imminent attacks on the province's social supports. And Alicia Bridges highlights similar uncertainty in Saskatchewan due to the Moe government's announcement of unspecified changes which they're not actually willing to present to the public.

- Meanwhile, Adam Hunter reports on the massive - and readily avoidable - travel bills being racked up by the Sask Party government which is inflicting cruel austerity on the province's citizens. And Anna Mikhailova and Charles Young point out how UK Conservative MPs are pointing to their adult children as an excuse to line their pockets with funding intended to defray child care expenses - even as they deny child care to parents who actually need it.

- Finally, William Snow writes from experience as to how the U.S.' elite universities serve as incubators for growing inequality of opportunity.

[Edit: added link.]

Musical interlude

Arcade Fire - Creature Comfort

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Astra Taylor points out that we should be far more concerned about a planetary carbon budget which actually involves inflexible limits, rather than delaying action in the name of avoiding spending on government balance sheets. J. David Hughes highlights how choices which subsidize and lock in fossil fuel production are incompatible with responsible climate policy. Mike Moffatt makes the case for an entrepreneurial mindset as a response to delay tactics. And Matt Gurney confirms that we shouldn't expect Andrew Scheer or any of his denialist cronies to start offering any viable plans to avert climate breakdown anytime soon.

- Don Pittis discusses how Canada has allowed itself to become a magnet for money laundering. And Richard Zussman reports on British Columbia's conclusion (based only on a partial assessment of the effect of foreign money) that its real estate market lone is being used to launder upwards of $5 billion per year.

- Steve Morgan argues that we shouldn't accept the spin of the pharmaceutical industry claiming that we have no choice but to pay inflated prices for essential medications.

- CBC News reports on the Canadian Paediatric Society's call for free birth control to be available to young Canadians. And Marie-Danielle Smith reports on the federal government's preliminary steps toward making menstrual products freely available in federally-regulated workplaces.

- Finally, David Macdonald writes that a basic income on its own won't fix the issues raised by precarious and poorly-regulated work.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Edward Keenan writes about the chaos being created by Doug Ford's reckless and thoughtless slashing of crucial public services.  CTV reports on one six-year-old cancer patient as just one of the many victims, while CBC News points out the global trend of increased alcohol use which Ford is going far out of his way to exacerbate. And Linda McQuaig offers a reminder that the destruction of social goods is no accident, but instead an intended consequence of Ford's choice to first sacrifice needed revenues to corporate idols.

- Larry Kusch reports on Brian Pallister's wasting of tens of millions of dollars on consultants while undermining Manitoba's public services. And David Climenhaga points out Jason Kenney's plan to spend his entire time in office trying to deflect blame to others, rather than making any attempt at delivering a functional government.

- Meanwhile, Rob Shaw reports on British Columbia's reductions in MRI wait times which show how investment in public health services - including by bringing private operators under the public system - results in the needs of citizens being met.

- Zaid Noorsumar examines how already-alarming official numbers of work-related injuries and deaths in Canada severely understate the problem.

- Finally, Bryan Carney reports on Facebook's longstanding awareness that its targeting advertising mechanism could be used to single out specific users without their knowledge or consent. And Chris Hughes makes the case to limit the monopoly power of Facebook and other tech giants which have assumed what amount to public utility roles.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Edward Kleinbard argues that citizens should be asking the question of whether markets actually serve society's best interests - while pointing out the compelling evidence to suggest they don't at the moment. And David Love writes about the increasing recognition among the exceedingly wealthy few that they can't expect the economic system to continue to be rigged in their favour.

- Meanwhile, Jake Johnson reports on the strike by Uber and Lyft drivers representing one of the largest and more important steps toward challenging worker exploitation in the gig economy. And Paul Willcocks argues that British Columbia's new protection for workers should be only the first of many steps in improving job quality.

- Peter Reuell writes about new research showing that inequality is growing both within and between geographic areas of the U.S., with structural inequality acting as a cause of increased geographic differences. And Pablo Uchoa points out how climate change has exacerbated economic inequalities.

- Kate Lyons reports on New Zealand's plan to reach a target of zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, while Peter Hannam notes that climate change is now the top issue in the minds of Australian voters. Jessy Bains discusses Mike Moffatt's research finding that tens of thousands of construction jobs which would be generated by even a small carbon pricing system, while Douglas Broom points out the plummeting costs of renewable energy. And Merran Smith and Trevor Melanson write about the importance of discussing climate policy in general rather than carbon taxes alone - though it's worth noting that even the full set of federal policies presented so far falls far short of the mark in averting a climate crisis.

-Finally, Richard Zussman reports on a new report showing that luxury cars have been used alongside real estate as part of massive money laundering in B.C.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Bagged cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David Ball reports on the movement forming in support of a Canadian Green New Deal. Kyla Tienhaara discusses how it fits into the global push for a just transition away from dirty energy and carbon pollution. And Chris Packham points out the need to put well-developed environmental ideas into action.

- Kyle Bakx discusses how the fossil fuel sector is getting away with refusing to pay its bills. And Robyn Allan highlights how the Libs' Trans Mountain bailout is handing windfall profits to the oil sector at the public's expense, while Charis Kamphuis calls out Justin Trudeau for his general tendency to do the bidding of the corporate sector.

- Bruce MacLellan writes about the need to earn and build trust in Canadian institutions which are currently seen as credible on a partisan basis if at all.

- The Guardian's editorial board weighs in on the value of education in the humanities and the dangers of a government which seeks to undermine anything of the sort. And needless to say, Doug Ford is attempting to make Ontario into an anti-academic backwater by tying funding to profit motives and dubious metrics.

- Finally, Loenid Bershidsky points out how the Czech Republic's new system of digital taxes is ensuring that tech giants contribute to the society they mine for profits.

[Edit: fixed typo, wording.]

On sound rejections

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's decision rejecting the Moe government's attacks on federal carbon pricing is worth a read in no small part for the general acceptance of a climate crisis by all parties when they were forced to rely on evidence rather than spin. But let's focus on how the majority judgment found the arguments asserted to challenge the federal backstop to be flawed from that starting point:

[51] Saskatchewan advances two main lines of argument in seeking to have the Act found unconstitutional. The first is that the principle of federalism prevents Parliament from enacting a statute applicable in only some provinces because of how those provinces have chosen to exercise their legislative authority. Saskatchewan’s second argument is that the Act imposes a tax and, because it allows the Governor in Council to decide where it applies, the Act offends the requirement in s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867 that bills imposing taxes must originate in the House of Commons. Saskatchewan goes on to deny that, as contended by Canada, the Act can be sustained under Parliament’s authority under the national concern branch of POGG.
...
[68] Saskatchewan has referred to no judicial authority which in any way directly supports the idea that the principle of federalism can or should independently render unconstitutional an otherwise valid law. Its argument on this front cannot succeed.
...
[111] In the end, Saskatchewan’s argument about the application of s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867 cannot succeed. The charges in issue here are not taxes in the constitutional sense of that term. However, if the charges are characterized as taxes, they do not violate s. 53.

And more fundamentally, on the need for climate policy to be subject to federal oversight rather than the whims of provinces acting in bad faith:

[156] All of this said, a good deal of the real significance of individual provincial failures to price GHG emissions to a minimum level plays out on a different plane. Climate change is a global problem and, accordingly, it calls for a global response. Such a response can only be effectively developed internationally by way of state-to-state negotiation and agreement. This, of course, is the story of the Framework Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord, and the Paris Agreement. In participating in these international processes, Canada is expected to make national commitments with respect to GHG reduction or mitigation targets. Those commitments are self-evidently difficult for Canada, as a country, to meet if not all provincial jurisdictions are prepared to implement GHG emissions pricing regimes – regimes that, on the basis of the record before the Court, are an essential aspect of successful GHG mitigation plans. This is not to suggest Parliament must somehow enjoy a comprehensive treaty implementation power in relation to the GHG issue. But, it is to say that the international nature of the climate change problem necessarily colours and informs an assessment of the effects of a provincial failure to deal with GHG pricing.

[157] It is true that the provinces, acting individually but cooperatively, could agree on a minimum national price for GHG emissions and thereby accomplish the same goal as the one sought by the Act. But this is not the point here. The point is that provinces could always withdraw from such arrangements and there is, accordingly, no assurance that coordinated provincial action would lead to a sustained approach to minimum GHG pricing.

Needless to say, though, no matter how soundly the Sask Party's political and legal positions have been rejected, it's always good news for Brad WallScott Moe.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Sigal Samuel reports on Gary Bloch's work in prescribing secure incomes to address health problems arising out of poverty. And Murtada Haizer and Stephen Moranis point out the massive social and economic returns on investments in community housing.

- D.C. Fraser reports on the disproportionate amount of money the Saskatchewan Party is spending on maintenance for brand-new P3 schools, leaving far less funding available for publicly-owned schools which actually need it.

- The Leader-Post and Star Phoenix editorial boards rightly argue that Saskatchewan needs to treat its youth mental health crisis as an emergency rather than a minor inconvenience.

- Celine McNicholas and Lynn Rhinehart point out the efforts by U.S. Democrats to give workers a somewhat more fair change to organize to change their workplaces for the better.

- Pete Evans reports on the reality that Canada's digital economy is already larger than most industries based on exploiting natural resources.

- And finally, Andrew Stevens highlights how immigration-bashing and prejudice against minority groups threaten Saskatchewan's future.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Mike Benusic points out that the success of public health programs is found in the absence of preventable illnesses and dangers - meaning that Doug Ford's slashing of Ontario's funding is likely to lead to far more health costs in the long run:

(P)ublic health isn’t in the business of patient care. Patients only become patients when they are sick. By preventing disease and promoting health, public health prevents people from becoming patients – by keeping the bridge sturdy so they never fall in the water. From the child who never had to go to the emergency room with measles because they were vaccinated, to the senior who was never hospitalized with food-poisoning because of restaurant inspections, public health works silently in the background.

The invisibility of the impact of public health is also its greatest weakness. When public health is working, nothing happens. So, often and now, funding is cut or diverted into more immediate needs – such as hospital beds. But by doing so, we undermine the system that prevents people from being in the hospital in the first place.

Thankfully, there is a wealth of evidence that makes the invisible impact of public health tangible. One analysis of the impact of local public health showed that for every dollar that’s spent, $4 is saved. Investing $10 per person per year in programs promoting physical activity, nutrition and reducing tobacco use can reduce diabetes and high blood pressure by  five per cent in one to two years, heart disease and stroke by five per cent in five years, and some forms of cancer and arthritis by 2.5 per cent in 10 to 20 years. These are some of the leading causes of hospitalization in Ontario. By preventing people from becoming sick in the first place, there would be no need for more hospital beds.

With massive cuts to local public health, it is clear that the government doesn’t feel that public health has a role in ending hallway medicine. Ironically, it may be the best solution.

- Muhannad Malas writes about Ford's elimination of Ontario's laws governing toxic pollution, while Kate Allen exposes the PCs' attack on protections for endangered species buried in a housing bill. Katie Nicholson and Joanne Levasseur report on the underfunding of Manitoba health inspectors under the Pallister PCs. And Mike De Souza reports that Jason Kenney's response to the abandonment of 4,700 wells by a defunct gas operator is to try to push for even more free handouts to the fossil fuel sector.

- MiningWatch studies how resource extractors are using trade deals to undermine environmental protections in developing countries. Barry Saxifrage points out that the Libs' current plans stand to fall centuries behind Canada's already-insufficient Paris emission targets. And Angela Carter laments Newfoundland and Labrador's decision to endanger its environment and economy in an attempt to chase oil revenues.

- Helen Briggs, Becky Dale and Nassos Stylianou chart the global environmental emergency (including but not limited to a climate crisis).

- Finally, Leo Gerard discusses the importance of a Green New Deal which protects both working conditions and the environment - while also pointing out the role the labour movement needs to play in helping to develop a transformative plan for our society.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Ethan Cox reports on the massive public support in Canada for a wealth tax. David Hetherington writes that the wealthy few go out of their way to avoid any personal interaction with the realities of economic inequality - making it absurd to accept their attempts to rig the political system to exacerbate it.  And Jim Stanford discusses the pattern of wage stagnation in Australia (which is of course all too familiar here as well).

- David Baxter reports on the latest report of Saskatchewan's advocate for children and youth highlighting the importance of mental health as an issue which is far too often ignored and underresourced. And Tyee Bridge points out that the recognition that older generations are willfully destroying the planet is causing particularly acute eco-anxiety.

- Meanwhile, Eoin Higgins notes that the short-term calculations of petro-politicians are helping to ensure their parties are toxic to younger voters. And Abacus Data's look at the priorities of young Canadians confirms they can see how they've been sold out by corporations and politicians.

- Finally, Bill McKibben discusses the opportunity for a moment of real political change. Varshini Prakash warns against accepting half measures in the face of an existential crisis. And Mitchell Anderson points out how tar sands operators have underreported their own greenhouse gas missions, making an already-privileged position in Canada's national climate change planning all the less justified.

Musical interlude

The Black Lotus - Eon

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Rick Smith and Ken Neumann write about the importance of developing a Green New Deal that includes participation from (and protection for) the workers affected by an economic transition.

- Meanwhile, Aditya Chakrabortty notes that the oil-backed right's personal attacks on Greta Thunberg and other politically engaged youth only serve to confirm their utter lack of anything constructive to offer in any political discussion. (See also Andrew Scheer's continued demurral in offering even a hint of a climate plan.)

- Peter Cary and Allan Holmes examine the paltry return workers received on billions in corporate tax cuts from the Trump administration. And James Moore reports on the "poverty premium" being extracted from the people who can least afford to pay it in the UK.

- On the bright side, the CCPA studies the living wage in Vancouver and finds that the Horgan government's child care policy alone has managed to reduce the effective cost of living by $1.41 per hour.

- Finally, Daniel Tencer reports on the Canadian resource companies using international trade deals to bully other countries into abandoning environmental protections. And Sarah Rieger reports on the 4,700 wells dumped into the public's lap for remediation by the failure of a single Alberta gas company.

New column day

Here, pointing out how Drawdown's list of emission reductions which are possible based on peer-reviewed research into current technology (which received recent attention thanks to a CNN quiz and Vox update) only makes all the more clear the political divide on climate change.

For further reading...
- Bill McKibben highlights the need for urgent climate action. And Merritt Turetsky discusses the chain reaction of further carbon releases set off by melting permafrost. 
- Akshat Rathi discusses how Extinction Rebellion succeeded in attracting attention and forcing action - including the UK's parliamentary declaration of a climate emergency.
- Aaron Wherry writes that Canada's political debate on climate change is stuck for the moment.
- And for those interested in participating in Regina's School Strike for Climate tomorrow, the event page is here.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Emilie Prattico comments on the need to move past an economy that generates billionaires and widespread precarity in order to ensure that collective problems can be meaningfully addressed:

While the public has never been as outspoken in its support of urgent and ambitious climate action, money talks, too—and that sound you’re hearing is the crushing din of an economy designed to further the interests of a capital-owning ruling class.
...
...(T)he kind of transformation we need to tackle climate change will require the overhaul of the entire economic system, not the incremental adjustments made by individual companies or countries. Shifting toward a net-zero carbon economy requires innovation in products and processes, the development of new business models, and new forms of cooperation across industries. It will unleash large amounts of investments into new, low-carbon plants and infrastructures. It will call for radically new legal, fiscal, and policy frameworks. It is highly unlikely to sustain the kinds of inequalities we witness today, nor support the existence of philanthropic billionaires.
...
The climate is the rare problem billionaires can’t throw their money at. We don’t need donations. We need a fundamentally different kind of economy, and radical action to profoundly transform the capitalist system that allows for billionaires to exist in the first place.

- David Suzuki writes that we can't afford to fiddle while our planet burns. And Dennis Wamstead notes that even in the U.S., renewable electricity generation is now exceeding that from coal.

- Alicia Elliott questions why safe water supplies continue to be lacking for far too many Indigenous communities. And Emily Mathieu reports on Leilani Farha's work to point out the absurdity of a homelessness epidemic being allowed to fester in cities as wealthy as Toronto.

- John Michael McGrath points out that the Ford PCs have chosen to maximize how much damage they do to the province in the name of satisfying base impulses, rather than paying any attention to the importance of programs and funding they're slashing. And Glen Pearson discusses the distinction between conservatism based on the preservation of institutions and values, and the current version built around lashing out in anger.

- Finally, Hassan Yussuff rightly argues that nobody should die for their job - even as over 1,000 Canadians do just that every year.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Pinky cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- James Murray highlights what climate protests have accomplished so far, while emphasizing the need to turn activism into policy change over the objections of the Very Serious People determined to dismiss climate action as impractical. And Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldana Cohen and Thea Riofrancos discuss how a Green New Deal can lead toward an updated set of fundamental freedoms. 

- Meanwhile, Marc Lee points out that instead of believe Andrew Scheer and Jason Kenney's bluster for a second, British Columbians should be aware that their increased gas prices are mostly the result of corporate profiteering - offering all the more incentive to avoid being at the mercy of a greedy fossil fuel sector.

- Richard Florida weighs in on the economic benefits of improved minimum wages, including positive wage spillover effects. And as a reminder of the health implications of a more fair economic system, a new NBER paper shows that higher minimum wages also correlate to reductions in suicides.

- But Robert Reich writes that the U.S.' political system has instead been used to enrich (and bail out) the wealthy few using the limited resources of the many.

- Finally, Geoff Dembicki calls out Scheer, Maxime Bernier and the other right-wing politicians who are try to tap into veins of hate in the name of self-aggrandizement.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Cory Booker rightly questions why corporations are hoarding the wealth created by the work of their employees. And Richard Reeves wonders why so many workers are left unable to find jobs with even remotely decent wages, particularly without signing over their lives in the process:

(I)he Great Recession also shone a light on trends long predating the downturn, not least in terms of stagnant wage growth for so many workers. By comparison with the postwar years, economic growth has been slow for the last few decades. At the same time, the transmission mechanism linking economic growth to the wages of workers appears to have broken. The share of income going to workers has dropped sharply, from 65% in 1974 to 57% in 2017.

In the last few years, as the zombie gradually wakes up, household incomes and wages have begun to nudge upwards – but families are still having to work more hours to get the income they need. Women are working more, and earning more (though the pay gap remains). But as men work less, and earn less, many families are simply standing still in economic terms. Since 1979, the median male wage in the US has dropped by 1.4% for white men – and by 9% and 8% for black and Hispanic men, respectively. Workers at the top of the earnings and education distribution have seen their paychecks continue to fatten: not so on the middle and bottom rungs of the labor market. Wage growth remains torpid in the middle of the distribution.

At the same time, the volatility of incomes at the bottom of the distribution has grown, in part because of shifts towards the so-called “gig economy”, intrinsically episodic, and in part because of the rise of unpredictable schedules. Most American workers are still paid by the hour, and half of them have no formal control over their schedules. Two in five hourly-paid workers aged between 26 and 32 know their schedules less than a week in advance. Hard to arrange childcare on that notice. Many American workers are fighting, like the trade unions of old, on two fronts: for money, and for time.

Why? Why, for so many for middle-class and working-class Americans has “economic growth become a spectator sport”, as the liberal economist Jared Bernstein memorably put it.
...
Whatever material gains workers managed to achieve came at the price of a profound loss of sovereignty. In her book Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It), philosopher Elizabeth Anderson argues that CEOs are the new totalitarians, who “think of themselves as libertarian individualists”, while acting in practice as “dictators of little communist governments”. We imagine ourselves free but effectively barter our freedom away in exchange for pay, effectively handing over our passports as we punch in.

What most people want is a job that pays a decent wage and offers both some satisfaction and security. The harsher critics of the system, like Anderson, believe that these goals are incompatible at a deep level with capitalist dynamics. But at least for some, especially for white men, market capitalism delivered pretty well for at least a generation. This is why it was so important to fight to crowbar the doors open for women and people of color. The progressive goal was not to curtail the market, but to open it.

- Liv Grant writes that her work on David Attenborough's climate change documentary has left her with an inescapable sense of climate anxiety. And Bob McDonald points out the increasing costs and risks of climate breakdown as feedback loops reinforce each other.

- Irina Ivanova discusses the new reality that wind and solar power are the U.S.' most affordable energy sources - at least when the fossil fuel lobby isn't actively obstructing their use. And CBC News reports on the Libs' latest plan to match any environmental protection with an equal and opposite step toward destruction, as they've opened up oil and gas drilling in a marine refuge off the east coast of Newfoundland while banning it in protected areas on the west coast.

- Finally, David Mowat responds to the short-sightedness of the Ford PCs by writing about the importance of investing in public health in order to prevent costly and avoidable harms. And Kate Haynes highlights the significance of the social determinants of health which are being ignored by Ford.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Derrick O'Keefe, Robert Hackett and Shane Gunster highlight how the TransMountain pipeline bailout and SNC-Lavalin scandal have cemented Justin Trudeau's status as a Potemkin progressive just in time for voters to hold him to account. And PressProgress offers a reminder that the amount of wealth being stashed offshore by corporate Canada continues to grow as the Libs dither on even basic steps to track and reverse the flow.

- Bill McKibben argues that we're at the point of lacking any choice but to taken urgent action to stop climate change, while Owen Jones muses that nationalizing the oil industry may be a necessary step along the road to decarbonizing our economy. David Rider reports that Toronto is among the jurisdictions looking at litigation to recover the costs of climate change from the people who have used it as a source of profit. Rachel Aiello reports that a shift from subsidizing fossil fuels to funding a transition to green energy is one of the NDP's top policy priorities. Rebecca Long-Bailey writes about UK Labour's push to declare a national climate emergency while leading an international movement toward a sustainable climate. And Kate Aronoff notes that a Green New Deal is part of Podemos' re-election campaign in Spain.

- Mattha Busby reports that UK employers are taking advance of Conservative loopholes by paying a record number of workers less than the minimum wage. And Hassan Yussuff offers a reminder of the need to ensure workers are safe on the job in the face of right-wing pushes to let employers endanger their employees.

- Finally, Adam Burns reports on the foreseeable social harms Ontario can anticipate from Doug Ford's determination to facilitate increased alcohol consumption.