Category: Rants

Posts where I spout off on one topic or another

Politics by spin in Canada

Olivier De Schutter, the right to food envoy of the United Nations, recently released a report highlighting how many Canadians suffer from food insecurity. In response, Canada’s health minister Leona Aglukkaq described him as “ill-informed” and “patronizing”.

To me, this response seems like part of a worrisome trend in Canada. Instead of thinking about real problems, our government obsesses over negative media coverage related to those problems. It’s not malnutrition or worsening climate change or tortured detainees that are the problem, but rather critical media coverage on these sorts of issues. Rather than trying to fix problems, effort seems to be disproportionately dedicated to silencing critics and producing counter-spin.

It doesn’t help that opposition parties generally use every bit of negative media coverage as a means of hammering ineffectually at the government. What they need to realize is that our current government is largely an accident arising from the nature of our electoral system. With one party on the right and four on the left (counting the solitary Green), elections tend to favour the more unified ideology.

Just as the government should re-dedicate itself to governing for the benefit of Canadians, the opposition should dedicate itself forming an electable party through one or more mergers.

Canada’s climate targets in 2012

Today’s report from Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) has attracted a fair bit of media attention. On climate change, the report argues that Canada lacks a credible plan for meeting our 2020 target of cutting greenhouse gas pollution to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. This target replaced Canada’s much more ambitious but now abandoned Kyoto Protocol target of cutting to 6% below 1990 pollution levels by 2012.

A few points in response:

1) None of Canada’s climate targets have ever been tough enough to be compatible with a fair global pathway that avoids more than 2°C of warming. In order to stay below the level at which climate change is generally considered ‘dangerous’, Canada and other countries must do much more than has been proposed so far.

2) As the CESD points out, Canada’s existing targets are more notional than realistic. In order to meet them, much more on-the-ground action needs to occur.

3) All of these pollution figures ignore Canada’s huge hydrocarbon exports. The question of how to assign responsibility for a litre of oil or a tonne of coal mined in Canada and sold overseas isn’t straightforward. At the same time, the planet doesn’t care whether the fuel is burned in Canada or in China. Either way, it contributes the same amount of warming to the climate system. If we are to address climate change, exports also need to be phased out.

Once we take into consideration the amount of fossil fuel we are exporting, Canada’s climate change record looks even worse then we only look at our failure to reach our past targets. It can be argued that fuel burnt in China or the United States isn’t our responsibility. This argument isn’t entirely convincing. For one thing, Canada regularly uses the inaction of China and the United States as an excuse to do less about climate change. That position doesn’t seem very credible if we are simultaneously supplying them with large quantities of fossil fuel.

Dealing with climate change requires transitioning the world away from fossil fuel dependence. Continued fossil fuel production is very costly, and delays those efforts. People are going to continue to make excessive use of coal, oil, and gas for as long as they are cheap and their use is unrestricted. At this stage in human history, it makes an enormous amount of sense to simply leave these fuels in the ground. In so doing, we sacrifice the short-term economic value that selling the fuels could provide. At the same time, we gain the opportunity to re-orient our economy and energy system in a way that is compatible with the coming post-carbon world.

Critically, leaving the fuels underground also lessens the harm we are imposing on other people around the world and on future generations. Because of the serious impacts of climate change, fossil fuel production is a fair bit like stealing copper wiring from the houses of other people. It seems profitable to the people doing the stealing, since they didn’t pay to have the wires installed in the first place and they won’t pay to have them replaced. From the perspective of society as a whole, however, copper wire thieves are causing harm while producing no net benefit. Rather than exploiting the economic opportunities that exist because the world hasn’t yet become serious about climate change mitigation, Canada should be investing its efforts and resources into making an effective and efficient transition to a zero-carbon economy with no fossil fuel exports. Firms like Suncor and Syncrude are much like those copper wire thieves. They are profiting handsomely today, but only doing so by imposing frightening costs on all members of future generations. Unfortunately, today’s oil companies are rich and politically influential, whereas future generations are defenceless and silent.

The targets that really matter are global: how much the planet will warm; how much sea ice will melt; how affected global agriculture will be; and how many more people will suffer from extreme weather or shortages of food and water. Canada’s current approach is short-sighted and selfish, to a degree that isn’t entirely obvious if you only look at our domestic pollution reduction targets and our (inadequate) efforts to reach them.

Canada is choosing a future for the world that is characterized by extreme climate instability, with all the human suffering that goes along with that. If we want to choose a different future, we need to accept that the era of fossil fuels is coming to an end, and it is time for us to make a devoted effort to rapidly phasing them out of our energy system.

Thinking of leaving GMail

I am thinking seriously about leaving GMail, despite how the email service itself has been extremely valuable to me. This is because of the following:

1) Irritating interface changes

GMail now has two interfaces. There is a maddening ‘modern’ interface that is full of elements that change shapes and sizes annoyingly. Anywhere you might enter text is likely to annoy you with pop-up ‘autocomplete’ suggestions and the chat system built into GMail has been rendered too annoying to use by integrating it into a left sidebar where elements change shape and size for no good reason.

The ‘Invite a friend’ element in the left toolbar breaks all the rules of good design. It’s a button that serves the purposes of Google, not the user. It is prominently placed even though it is never used. Worst of all, it moves and changes shape when you put the cursor near it. I wish I had some kind of supernatural geekish power to blast it out of existence, and yet it is always there annoying me, taking up space, and being a source of distraction.

I want an interface where things stay still! And where I am not being constantly distracted from the thinking I am trying to do.

There is still a ‘basic HTML’ interface, but some of its behaviours are even more annoying. It will still autocomplete email addresses, for instance, but it doesn’t use my whole contact list. It seems to be a random subset of the much-lesser-used contacts within that list. It is also very awkward to file emails into labels using the basic interface, and to deal with archiving messages.

2) Pimping Google+

I hate Google+ and I will never join. Despite that, Google is constantly trying to force me to join or trick me into joining. In the top left corner of both the GMail web interface and the mobile interface there is always a link to join Google+. I frequently click it accidentally, and that simple accidental act has sometimes caused Google to actually create a Google+ account for me, which I then had to delete.

I wish there was a ‘Never tell me about Google+ again’ button somewhere within Google’s settings. I could click it once and stop being annoyed several times a day by solicitations from the unwanted service.

3) I trust Google less and less with my data

I have written before about how sensitive some of the data held by Google is. “Don’t be evil” is a basic standard they need to meet – not a lofty goal for which they should be praised.

It’s not especially clear to me that Google is living up to its own standards. Even if they are, telecommunications law in Canada and the United States seems to have developed rather perversely in recent years, with governments submitting illegal requests to perform unwarranted searches on personal information and large telecommunication companies complying in secret.

Google probably isn’t unusual in terms of the degree to which it complies with such requests, but it is unusual in terms of the vastness of the dataset they have on users. Potentially, this includes everything from their physical location history (Google Latitude) to their web search history to every email they have sent or received since joining GMail.

Using Google’s services involves putting a lot of sensitive eggs into a basket that may not be especially well protected.

Earth Day 2012

If you want to do something meaningful for Earth Day, I recommend contacting one of your elected representatives tomorrow morning (Member of Parliament, etc) to share your concerns about climate change or another environmental issue. If there are going to be solutions to the dire environmental problems we face, they are going to be at the level of all of society, not at the level of individual consumption. Signing the petition against the Northern Gateway pipeline wouldn’t hurt either. Every way you look at them, the oil sands are an environmental disaster and a violation of our obligation to pass on a healthy planet to our descendants.

Michael Maniates explains why we must go beyond individual action well in his article: “Individualization: Plant a Tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?” (Global Environmental Politics 1:3, August 2001):

The other road, a rocky one, winds towards a future where environmentally concerned citizens come to understand, by virtue of spirited debate and animated conversation, the “consumption problem.” They would see that their individual consumption choices are environmentally important, but that their control over these choices is constrained, shaped, and framed by institutions and political forces that can be remade only through collective citizen action, as opposed to individual consumer behavior. This future world will not be easy to reach. Getting there means challenging the dominant view—the production, technological, efficiency-oriented perspective that infuses contemporary definitions of progress—and requires linking explorations of consumption to politically charged issues that challenge the political imagination. Walking this path means becoming attentive to the underlying forces that narrow our understanding of the possible.

To many, alas, an environmentalism of “plant a tree, save the world” appears to be apolitical and non-confrontational, and thus ripe for success. Such an approach is anything but, insofar as it works to constrain our imagination about what is possible and what is worth working towards. It is time for those who hope for renewed and rich discussion about “the consumption problem” to come to grips with this narrowing of the collective imagination and the growing individualization of responsibility that drives it, and to grapple intently with ways of reversing the tide.

If you really want to take individual action, I would suggest that you make a start on doing something substantial:

  • Resolving to eat less meat
  • Resolving to travel less
  • Resolving to have fewer children

At the very least, replace a few incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent or LED alternatives. Then at least you will be making a contribution with a value that extends beyond 24 hours.

Toronto’s graffiti plan

Generally, I think graffiti is great. While there is certainly a lot of it that is made without skill, much of it consists of skillfully executed art and social commentary. The fact that graffiti is not approved – and that creating it carries a certain risk for the artist – contributes to the degree to which it is artistically and politically interesting. To an extent, graffiti reveals the true thoughts of a city, as opposed to the comparatively inert and uncontroversial thoughts normally reflected by officially approved public art.

Given all of that, I object to Toronto mayor Rob Ford’s new graffiti reporting plan:

[H]e’s going to charge small businesses to remove the graffiti on their walls, even if the graffiti in question is a beautiful mural that everyone, including the business-owner, approves of

I have photographed graffiti in a wide variety of places, from Vancouver to Helsinki to Marrakesh, and much more often than not what I have seen has been an improvement over the blank wall that preceded it. I certainly don’t think that graffiti should be removed just because one person with a smartphone app complains to the city about it. In particular, if the owner of the property where the graffiti was made approves of it, the graffiti should have the same protection under the law as a blank coat of paint would.

The only sort of graffiti that I really object to is when someone artlessly scrawls their name or some banal slogan on a wall or – even worse – on a nicely executed piece of existing graffiti. That and blatantly offensive graffiti I would not object to seeing removed. As for the rest of it, I recommend leaving it where it is.

Oil sands similes

  • Exploiting the oil sands is like drinking seawater, when you are already dangerously dehydrated.
  • It’s like starting up a smoky old kerosene lantern aboard a space station that is rapidly running out of air.
  • It’s like giving more whiskey to the already-drunk guide who is paddling our canoe over Niagara Falls.

And yet, huge expansion plans are being implemented. The fact that is is profitable has led us to ignore the fact that it is incredibly reckless, as well as an act of violence directed against vulnerable people and future generations.

Trying the same thing and expecting a different result

I’m sure everyone has heard this quote and its variations: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result”.

While it may have a kind of folksy charm, I think the position being argued here is plainly false. While there will never be a simple an unambiguous definition for a concept as subjective as ‘insanity’, I think the definition above can be effectively refuted.

First, we need to be careful about what we mean by ‘the same thing’. A man trying to open a pickle jar is likely to do ‘the same thing’ several times – trying to twist off the lid in what he believes to be the right direction. Frequently, the repeated application of effort will do the job. It can be argued that this doesn’t contradict the original claim. ‘Twisting the lid of a pickle jar that I have already twisted five times’ is not ‘the same thing’ as ‘twisting the lid of a pickle jar that I have already twisted four times’. Fair enough, but this interpretation supports the view that repeating the same behaviour can be an intelligent and successful strategy, rather than the mark of mental imbalance.

Second, there is a reasonably admirable practicality involved when a person tries something several times and notes whether the result changes. I might try throwing five darts at a dart board and get a different result with each one. Less trivially, I might apply to ten graduate schools and get a range of answers. In these circumstances, my expectations are more complex than ‘same result’ or ‘different result’. I may well get into nuanced claims like: “I thought it was pretty likely I would hit the dart board, but I had no idea where” or “I am likely to get into some schools, but probably not all of the most prestigious ones’.

The world often involves complicated interactions between phenomena that incorportate chaotic elements. In a world like that, trying the same thing over and over can be an essential way of sorting out what the governing dynamics of a relationship really are. The fact that trial and observation are at the heart of the scientific method are probably why this flippant witticism annoys me so much.

As is often the case, XKCD has already made this point in a more effective and eloquent way than I can.

Excluding traffic noise

My latest effort to avoid the constant sound of traffic and streetcar noise in my bedroom consists of wearing DeWalt DPG62-C ‘Interceptor’ Protective Safety Earmuffs over top of foam earplugs.

The earmuffs are rated for 29 decibels of sound reduction, while the earplugs are supposedly good for 32. The sound reduction doesn’t seem to be equal across the range of frequencies I can hear. Birdsong comes right through strangely unaffected, and the rumble of heavy trucks and SUVs remains perceptible, along with the clang and whoosh of streetcars. Together, the two forms of hearing protection do pretty effectively exclude traffic noise, at least when I have my window closed. Whether the whole setup will remain in place overnight is another question.

Wearing the combination is actually a bit disconcerting. There is a constant hiss in my ears, which I think is a combination of the hiss you get from hearing damage with the quiet flow of blood through my ears themselves. If I walk on pavement, each step produces a loud pounding noise. Even walking softly on a wooden floor in socks, I can hear my joints complain slightly when I put my weight on them. For some reason, wearing all this ear protection also makes me more aware of my body, from the mild ever-present pain in my left shoulder to the bodily exhaustion that characterizes the end of another frustrating and largely fruitless day.

We will see whether this combination of tools helps square the circle of a person who is always intensely irritated by traffic noise living in a thin-windowed second-floor apartment overlooking one of Toronto’s busier urban streets.

Ubiquitous surveillance

We now live in a world where it is highly likely that various web companies, your government, and your internet service provider are tracking your web browsing. Where facial recognition software identifies you at borders, airports, and subway stations. Where your DNA may be sampled if you are arrested. Where new face tracking software gets used with old photo archives and video camera footage. Where data on what you buy and how you repay your debts is sold between companies. Where cameras track your automobile license plate to build up a database of your movements. Where drones may watch you from the sky. Where computers transcribe your speech and handwriting into searchable text. Where you can be identified at a distance by the cards in your wallet. Where your emails, phone calls, and text messages are scanned for keywords, archived forever, and used to build up webs of your known associates. Where governments and private organizations use data mining techniques against you. Where your cell phone can easily be turned into a bug that passes on what you say and type, as well as where you are. Where your Google searches may be used as evidence against you. Where anyone can listen to your cell phone calls. Where the metadata in the photos and videos you make identifies you. Where the DNA of your family members may be used to incriminate you. Where anyone on your wireless network can archive and access all your web traffic, as well as steal website sessions. Where no encryption software you can acquire does much good. Where insecure means of communication are marketed as secure. Where archives containing your sensitive personal data can be broken into (or bought) by those who wish to cause you trouble. And where anything ill-considered you did as a teenager may re-emerge to cause embarrassment or worse decades later.

The appropriate responses to this are not clear. You can simply accept that your life is an open book that anyone who cares to can pretty easily read from. You can opt out of some services (like Facebook) and employ some available countermeasures. You can move to the remote countryside and become a technology-shunning subsistence farmer (which is not to imply that all farmers shun technology, nor manage only to subsist). You can try to drive legislative, regulatory, and technological changes that address some of the issues above. What else can you do?

Forms of address

One of the trickier aspects of corresponding with lots of relative strangers is never knowing quite what to call people.

This is all in relation to written communication. In one-on-one speech, I go out of my way not to call people anything at all.

Academic titles

To start with, there is the eternal question of how to refer to an academic who you don’t know. They probably have a title, which might be ‘Associate Professor’ or ‘Assistant Professor’ or just ‘Professor’. Do you call everyone ‘Professor X’? Or do you use the title on their website? What about people who are excessively quick to call themselves ‘professor’? I have seen it on the business card of a doctoral student.

My solution – call everybody with a doctorate ‘Dr. X’. It doesn’t matter if they just got their doctorate yesterday or whether they have won an armload of Nobel Prizes. ‘Dr. X’ is a perfectly polite form of address between strangers.

Exception: close friends and fellow former students. You may have worked half a decade to get that post-nominal P.H.D., but if we were in first year together I reserve the right to call you by your first name indefinitely.

Other titles

I basically ignore them. ‘Reverend X’ and ‘Lieutenant X’ and ‘Engineer X‘ and ‘Mayor X’ and ‘Prime Minister X’ are all liable to be referred to simply as “Mr. / Ms. X”.

Women

It’s a bit embarrassing that there even has to be a space for this, but such are the sexual double standards of our society. There is nothing as neutral as ‘Mr. Smith’ that you can call a woman. Every option carries a political message. Using ‘Miss Smith’ or ‘Mrs. Smith’ means buying into the somewhat absurd notion that a woman’s whole identity changes when she gets married (and when a man’s does not). I use ‘Ms. X’ anytime I can’t call someone ‘Dr. X’. That goes for any stranger, usually until they specifically tell me to call them something else.

Someone who you know nothing about

Say you discover that www.websitename.com has been horribly defaced. You want to contact ‘webmaster@websitename.com’ but you don’t know any part of their name, or whether they are male or female.

In this circumstance, I usually go with ‘Good [time of the day]’ if I am being less formal and ‘Sir or Madam’ if I am being more formal.

Referring to me

I am perfectly happy to have everybody call me ‘Milan’.

Whenever I see a letter for ‘Milan Ilnyckyj, BA’ I know it is UBC writing to ask for alumni donations.