Politics – Page 98 – a sibilant intake of breath

Inside Canadian Intelligence

Edited by Dwight Hamilton, Inside Canadian Intelligence: Exposing the New Realities of Espionage and International Terrorism is an interesting read, though I would say that there are some important counterarguments to the main ideological positions adopted by the various authors.

The book describes Canada’s various present and historical intelligence services, including the intelligence branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), military intelligence, and others. There are chapters on counterintelligence, on the Air India attack and subsequent investigations, on special forces (including JTF-2), and on various other topics connected to matters of Canadian security and intelligence. For those wanting to get a better understanding of the history and present operations of these organizations, it is probably a worthwhile read. There is also some interesting information on technical capabilities and techniques, such as some information on the RADAR and infrared data fed into NORAD, how internal government security screenings are conducted, automated facial recognition, how some information from human sources is validated, and voice recognition in mass surveillance of telecommunication.

Most books written by people closely linked to intelligence organizations have a tendency to represent the officers of those organizations as heroes who can do no wrong, opposed by inhuman monsters, and hampered by meddling politicians and judges (for example). What this ignores is the dangers posed to the general public by intelligence services themselves, as well as the willingness they sometimes demonstrate to protect their own interests at the expense of the general public. Oversight may occasionally prevent good things from being done, but it surely prevents abuses as well.

Another assumption I question is that it is appropriate to categorize counterterrorism efforts as a ‘war’. First, I don’t think that is accurate. Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity that can be defeated. Secondly, I think it causes problems when we describe the fight against terrorism as a war. It justifies a lack of oversight, and can be used to justify human rights violations. It also creates the misleading impression that the ‘War on Terror’ could end. In reality, as long as there are people willing to use violence for political purposes, there will be terrorism. It can no more be ended than tax evasion or petty crime.

Above all, what this book lacks is a sense of perspective. Terrorism really isn’t such a huge problem. It kills far fewer people than chronic or infectious diseases, war, or accidents. It’s a mistake to turn our society upside down or spend an excessive amount of money trying to stop people from using certain violent tactics. We need to remain aware of the importance of other priorities, as well as the ways in which ‘being at war’ corrodes the integrity of democratic states. One example of such corrosion is the dangerous tendency of states to spy on everybody, in hopes of catching the few people who may be up to no good. Because it is so powerful, and has so many abilities to hide its mistakes and abuses, the state is far more dangerous than any terrorist cell, and it is critical to human freedom that the power of states be kept in check.

By all means, we should be grateful for the good work done by the security services, but we must also recognize the danger that they will go too far and become violators of rights, as well as the much greater importance of other governmental undertakings. Dealing with cancer and providing a better education for children are far more important to the welfare of Canadians than stopping terrorist attacks. It’s a shame that we are continuing to spend billions on the latter, while government is cutting back on virtually everything else.

Space tourism is pointless and damaging

Henry Shue has written convincingly about the moral importance of the rich giving up luxuries for the sake of fighting climate change, before the poor are asked to give up necessities. As he explains it, even in an emergency you sell the jewelry before you sell the blankets.

The ultimate example of luxury emissions is probably private spaceflight, as described in Nature recently. All that fuel gets burned so that a few really rich people can get to a high altitude and gawk for a while before returning to Earth.

Surely, our climate policies should curb such behaviours.

Beacon op-ed on climate

Cheryl McNamara wrote a good op-ed on climate change for The Calgary Beacon. She does a good job of making the economic case for action:

Either lock into an insecure high-carbon system, or legislate a mechanism that sends a clear market signal to nourish an industry poised to surge, bring new life back to our ailing manufacturing sector, create an abundance of quality jobs, and create healthier communities.

Change is difficult. But not when it generates great benefits. By putting a price on carbon that increases annually and giving the proceeds back to citizens to stimulate the economy we can develop a sustainable society for our kids and grandkids. Isn’t that what true conservatism is all about?

Carbon pricing is a policy that we should have implemented decades ago to kick off a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy. The earlier we get started, the less chance that transition will cost, the less infrastructure we will need to scrap prematurely, and the lower the odds that the world will suffer from dangerous climate change.

McNamara is the leader of the Toronto chapter of the Citizens Climate Lobby. It’s a group that has sound strategies and seems to be making a difference through political advocacy, intelligent interaction with the media, and direct communication with politicians.

If you have some time to spare and a desire to be part of the solution on climate change, CCL is a good group to get involved with. They have introductory conference calls frequently.

Unproductive investments that harm the world

Since the 2008 credit crunch, the governments of the world have been obsessed with economic conditions: trying to find ways to increase growth, improve the stability of the financial system, and cut unemployment. All other societal projects have taken a back seat. Given reasonable concerns about the economic future of the world, it seems like common sense to say that governments and societies should be investing their wealth and effort into things that will yield a beneficial return in the future. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the course Canada is following. We are making big investments in things that are bad for our own economic health, and even worse for the world at large.

Take the F-35 stealth fighter jets. They have no conceivable use. Canada is not going to war with any country that is capable of shooting down lesser jets, at least at any time in the foreseeable future. In the longer term, the jets still look useless, as it is increasingly clear that the age of manned combat aircraft is ending. Canada is spending tens of billions of dollars on weapons we do not need now, and which will probably be obsolete long before they go out of service. We should just skip this generation of killing machines, and perhaps invest later if some credible threat to Canadian security actually emerges.

The new crime bill is an even worse example of putting good money to counterproductive uses. There is no crime epidemic that requires a government response. There is no evidence that imprisoning more people will reduce crime below the already-low level where it is now. Indeed, the only things we can be sure about is that imprisoning people for longer will do more to wreck their chances of living a productive life, while harming their families and communities.

The oil sands may be the biggest example of Canada’s misplaced priorities. Look at the big picture. There are two possible futures for the world:

A world where we do nothing about climate change, and warming of well over 4˚C takes place
A world where we wake up and begin the process of aggressively phasing out fossil fuels

The first possibility is a suicide pact. We would probably be condemning the world to radically destabilizing climate change, with sea level rise of many metres, dramatic changes in precipitation patterns, and enormous human suffering as a consequence. In the second possibility, there is no place for an industry like the oil sands. Indeed, unconventional oil and gas production serves only to lengthen humanity’s dependence on fossil fuels. The smart investment is figuring out how to live on carbon-neutral sources of energy. Spending billions of dollars on an industry that will either be dismantled soon or will persist as a witness to a burning planet doesn’t make either economic or moral sense.

Even if Canada never wakes up and takes the obligation to address climate change seriously, it is quite possible that the rest of the world will do so. The people who say that oil sands extraction are inevitable are the same people who said that the Keystone XL pipeline was a sure thing. As people become aware of the dangers of climate change and the ethical imperatives that flow from them, they will be less and less inclined to invest in the suicidal fossil fuel industry, and less and less willing to buy its lethal products. The billions Canada is investing in fossil fuel infrastructure may end up rusting unused. Leaving the Kyoto Protocol is just one indication that Canada is out of step with the international community, and risks becoming an international pariah based on its selfish focus on fossil fuel profits.

There are so many things we could be spending money more usefully on. We could be investing in the skills and training of the Canadian workforce. That would be a sensible recognition of how global patterns of trade and production continue to change. We could be investing in sustainable infrastructure: buildings, transport links, power generation and storage facilities, and an agricultural system that can function without fossil fuels. We could be investing in assistance to those who are suffering from extreme poverty, both in Canada and around the world, as well as those who struggle with serious mental illnesses.

Canada can make smarter choices, not to mention choices that cause less needless harm. We just need to think a bit more about what sort of world we want for our children and examine whether our current priorities are aligned well with those goals.

Precision and avoiding error

It is fundamental to the nature of truth as accessed by human beings that there is a trade-off between how precise a view we express about a particular subject and how certain we can be of avoiding error.

This can be expressed in a basic way by thinking about estimation. If we are asked to guess how many years Genghis Khan lived for, it is safe to say ‘between 1 and 1000’. It’s not very precise, but the real figure is in there somewhere. Every time we specify a narrower band, we increase the risk of missing the target.There is an inescapable connection between providing a more precise answer and running a greater risk of excluding the answer that is true.

This remains true when it comes to questions that are much more complex and abstract, such as “what is likely to happen in Afghanistan after NATO leaves” or “what are the likely consequences of climate change on international security”. In responding to complex questions, we probably need to acknowledge the limits of what is really knowable. We have limited information, and often a limited span of time in which to make choices. Dealing with that probably requires an awareness of the precision/certainty trade-off, along with a willingness to keep all possibilities in mind, even if they are unproven.

Quite possibly, we should be more willing to err on the side of caution when the level of uncertainty is high and at least some large credible risks seem to exist. When a nuclear reactor may be melting down, it may be a good idea to inject the core with seawater. Doing so ruins the reactor for future electricity generation, but reduces the risk of a terrible outcome in which a meltdown is coupled with a large-scale containment failure. Excluding the worst possibilities usually involves real costs of various sorts, but it is probably better to accept the certainty of a known loss to significantly reduce the probability of an unknown but potentially much worse outcome. In short, it pays to play it safe on important matters.

Boycott Canada over climate?

As Canada’s statement at the UNFCCC conference in Durban demonstrates, Canada’s political system is currently working for those groups that want Canadian greenhouse gas pollution to remain unlimited, ignoring the costs it imposes on other people around the world. Contrary to the slogan of market-based liberal environmentalism, the slogan of the current approach could be interpreted as: “Keep externalities external”.

Dealing with climate change requires a more productive attitude.

How, then, can Canada’s position be changed so as to be compatible with avoiding dangerous or catastrophic climate change? Right now, the political debate is being dominated by groups that see reducing greenhouse gas pollution as harmful to their business interests – particularly the oil and gas industry. If the rest of the world wants to put pressure on Canada to stop being such an environmental laggard, they may need to convince the rest of Canadian business that it doesn’t pay to be an environmental pariah.

What sort of boycott, I wonder, might be able to achieve that outcome? Something that would catch the attention of the majority of Canadian businesses that do not depend fundamentally on increasing pollution for their continued growth. General economic sanctions might be reasonable: increased tariffs on all Canadian exports, along with a reduced willingness to do trade deals, for as long as Canada refuses to do its fair share in dealing with climate change. After all, the flaws in Kyoto are not a license for inaction.

It would be very reasonable for states with domestic carbon pricing schemes to impose carbon tariffs on states like Canada that do not. As long as the tariff level for emissions embedded in imports is set at the same level as the domestic carbon price, such a policy would be compatible with World Trade Organization rules.

What do other people think?

Designated whistleblowers on corporate boards

In my continuing campaign to come up with specific policy ideas for the ‘Occupy’ movement people, I had another idea: designated whistleblowers on corporate boards of directors.

Basically, they would be people who would need to attend all board meetings and who would have a specific obligation to immediately report any activity that is either illegal or a possible threat to the financial system as a whole.

They could be company insiders who are specifically charged with this role, with rewards for doing it well and penalties for doing it badly. Alternatively, they could be civil servants who are knowledgeable about the firm’s line of work.

Arguably, this would just lead to nefarious activities being orchestrated in venues other than board meetings. Even if some of that happens, it could still be useful. At the very least, it would obligate nefarious board members intent on breaking the law to arrange ways to trick the designated whistleblower, which would interfere with some kinds of bad behaviour. Also, having a designated whistleblower constantly present would be a reminder to others that you are allowed to point out unethical behaviour when it is being practiced by your employer.

Kyoto has problems, but Canada must still act

On BuryCoal, I have written a quick post on why people are wrong when they argue that the problems with the Kyoto Protocol mean that Canada should not participate meaningfully and in good faith in ongoing international climate negotiations. The failure of Kyoto to curb the rise in global emissions strengthens rather than diminishes the case for coordinated international action.

COP 17 – Durban

Right now, the seventeenth Conference of the Parties for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is happening in Durban, South Africa.

Expectations are low.

The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. States that were outside Kyoto, like the United States, seem unlikely to commit to a new treaty. Those inside the treaty but with no reduction targets for greenhouse pollution, like China, seem unlikely to accept targets. Those who have simply chosen to ignore their targets, like Canada, will probably continue on that course. The states that have made real efforts under Kyoto are dispirited by the failure of the rest of the world to build on their example.

The fact that we are at the seventeenth annual conference and have not yet gotten on top of the problem is worrisome. It is as though the world’s scientists have told us that we are all on a train heading for the edge of a cliff. After all this time, we are nowhere near stopping the train. We haven’t even begun to slow down. Indeed, through behaviours like shale gas fracking and oil sands exploitation, we are investing billions of dollars in ways to make the train go faster.

Mandatory minimums and the crime bill

Depressingly, it looks like this new crime legislation will become law in Canada – bringing with it the certainty of substantial new prison costs and little in the way of likely benefits.

One aspect that seems especially objectionable is mandatory minimum sentences. I think it makes a lot of sense for a judge who knows the law and the circumstances of a case to decide what punishment is fitting. Binding the hands of a judge by forbidding sentences of less than a set amount seems like a policy can that only produce injustice. Surely, there are cases where a literal interpretation of the law would apply to someone, but where it would be unjust to punish the guilty party severely. Letting judges keep their discretion is an appropriate reflection of the complexity of the world. I also question whether the supposed problem of excessively lenient sentencing – the basis for establishing minimums – actually exists.

I also think it is counterproductive and unjust to tighten the laws on illegal drugs. Most of the harm done by drugs arises precisely because they are illegal. It would be far better to legalize, regulate, and provide treatment. That is especially true of exceptionally benign drugs like marijuana – which is probably less damaging to the people who use it than most prescription antidepressants. Besides, it is up to properly informed individuals to decide what they want to put into their bodies – not a moralizing state that has bought into the morally bankrupt and ineffective ‘War on Drugs’ mentality.

Finally, I strongly object to the lack of personal security for inmates in prison. Even criminals deserve to have their human rights protected by the state.