Full Speed Ahead for Global Shipping

Jeff Rubin is at it again. The unconventional former world-markets whiz from CIBC has made another one of his wild, out-on-a-limb forecasts. Rubin has made a name for himself making bold and often unsettling predictions that have a knack for proving themselves accurate – or at least as accurate as economic predictions can be. Over the years, he has anticipated fluctuations in the interest rate and Canadian dollar with surprising precision, projected the decline in the Ontario real-estate market, and predicted soaring energy prices in the 2000s. Now, in a new book entitled Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization, Rubin has declared that peak oil will lead to the collapse of global shipping and global industry along with it.

The basic premise of Rubin’s argument is simple. The global supply of oil is tapering off while global demand for oil continues to rise. As a result, oil prices will continue to inch upwards with gathering momentum as oil becomes increasingly scarce. Skyrocketing (triple-digit) oil prices in the upcoming decades will inflate shipping costs to the point that it becomes no-longer viable to produce commodities on one side of the planet then ship them half-way around the globe to consumers. Rubin expects agriculture to be the hardest hit. The collapse of global agriculture has especially worrying concerns for Rubin, and he argues that peak oil presents a tremendous threat to food security for food importing countries. The United States, for example, imported $6 billion worth of food from China last year which, Rubin quips, “brings a whole new meaning to having Chinese food delivered.” Rubin’s inner-futurist leads him to the conclusion that new, decidedly anti-global forms of production will prevail when the scarcity of oil forces humanity to abandon shipping their meals across the globe.

Rubin is no doomsday prophet, however. In fact, he finds hope in the collapse of global shipping and global agriculture. According to Rubin, triple-digit oil prices will provide the disincentive necessary to force consumers to abandon their energy-intensive lifestyles that rely so heavily on the gas-guzzling transoceanic container ships that have become the backbone of the global economy. In his vision of a post-petroleum-dependent world, local food economies will thrive again. He explains that “Not only does replacing foreign food with local food save energy, but in the process it reduces carbon emissions – a double win in an economy that not only has to contend with triple-digit oil prices but that will soon put a price on burning oil as well.” Rubin likes to think he has found the silver lining to an otherwise disturbing global economic collapse.

Part One of my loosely joined series on global food has already detailed how new research continues to disprove Rubin’s assumption that replacing foreign food with local food will save energy and reduce carbon emissions. Rather than repeat all these facts, figures, and explanations, I will briefly summarize the key points. Global shipping is enormously more efficient at moving enormous quantities of food cargo than the small highway trucks and old farm pickups of the local food economy. Even though the distances involved are further, global shipping allows food production to occur in the world’s least energy-intensive locales, and considering production is where the bulk of the energy is expended, our food arrives in our supermarkets with smaller carbon emissions overall. Global agriculture owes its creation to a search for the most economically efficient way to feed humanity’s appetite. The same benefits of a global scale already apply to environmental efficiency as well.

Another important factor Rubin seems to ignore in his local food utopia is the question of how local food would be transported once peak oil has rendered gas prices prohibitively high. Does he expect the horse-and-buggy to make a comeback? Or, perhaps he expects wheelbarrows will conquer the abandoned highways? These antiquated modes of transportation could never provide the transport capacity humanity needs to feed itself. The reality of the situation is that local food economies are just as vulnerable to peak oil, if not more so than their leaner, more efficient global counterparts. There is no silver-lining here.

While Jeff Rubin’s argument that peak oil is desirable can be discounted by this new research, his argument that peak oil will have inevitable and profound impacts on global shipping still stands as a problem that deserves serious attention. Can global shipping continue to thrive in a world of triple-digit oil prices? I submit that it can for two reasons. First, the processes of economics dictate that global shipping is better positioned to absorb input-cost inflation. Second, the processes of innovation dictate, or at the very least suggest that fresh ideas and new technologies will help global shipping use their oil more efficiently and more environmentally.

Hopefully, readers will not be scared away by some economic terminology. Price elasticity of demand is the measurement of how demand for a commodity responds to changes in prices for that commodity. In other words, the likelihood that a shopper will leave the product on the shelf once they discover the price had increased. The peak oil premise is founded upon this economic concept, and the security of transporting food through networks that rely heavily upon oil, a commodity notorious for its price volatility, has increasingly been called into question, and not just by Rubin. The major short-coming with this food security narrative is that different price elasticities exist for different types of oil consumers. A weekend traveller or commuter-of-convenience, for instance, is more likely to drop out of a bidding war for oil than a large institutional transporter that requires oil to fuel an important and necessary economic activity. Sadly, little economic research has been conducted on this question, and it is hard to say how much sooner the weekend traveller or commuter-of-convenience would drop out of the bidding war. One hundred dollars sooner? Fifty dollars sooner? One dollar sooner? Nonetheless, the basic premise remains sound. The North-American car lifestyle will die out long before global shipping does. And once it does, remaining oil supplies can be concentrated on industries we rely upon to feed ourselves while innovation and technological advancement transforms humanity into smarter, less dependant oil users.

Global shipping is at the forefront of this innovation and technological advancement. Bold strides have been taken in this direction, and they have been well documented. A recent BBC article recounts some of these exciting new developments in the world of ship-building. For instance, the world’s largest container ship, the Estelle Maersk, makes use of several innovative design features that increase her efficiency and allow her to travel farther on each fill-up. Internal funnels on her engines capture waste heat to drive power-boosting turbines that reduce fuel consumption by 10%, kind of like the world’s largest supercharged street racer. Additionally, cutting-edge hull design, computerized systems control, and an extra-slippery coat of silicon paint make her one of the sleekest, most efficient ships ever built. All together, these technologies reduces her fuel consumption 25% when combined with new, smart sailing practices. Other innovations for global shipping are in the works, including kites to harness nautical winds, and as new discoveries are made, new technologies will continue keep global shipping on the cutting edge of efficiency.

Jeff Rubin’s book is engaging food for thought, and it raises important questions about the security of our food supply and the future of our global food economy. Sadly, his book fails to recognize the folly of local food economies as a solution to clear and present ecological concerns. Furthermore, it fails to recognize the innovations that have been made in global shipping and the promise they hold that efficient global economies might continue to benefit the residents of our small planet. They say that necessity is the mother of all invention, and the vast appetite of humanity has already required us to invent global agriculture. Now, the fragility of our world is requiring us to invent new ways to fuel our food. Hopefully, these inventions will prevail before our world and our food security comes crashing down around us.

Save the Planet – Buy Global Food! Debunking the food miles myth

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot about food miles and the environmental benefits of local food. I hear about it from friends and on the radio. I read about in newspapers and on the Internet. Every environmentally conscious consumer, it seems, has fallen for local food and farmers’ markets. And when I tell them that I don’t buy into the local food logic, and that I believe global food is the key to sustainability, I invariably get some kind of suspicious, even dirty look. I watch them wonder: How could anyone deny that local food is our environmental salvation? How could anyone endorse the psychopathic, planet-murdering global food consumer lifestyle?

My reasons are hard to explain, and they rarely withstand the full onslaught of slick, local food slogans. This is probably a case of what my roommate would call “unsexy truths” – it’s nearly impossible to distill my logic into buzzwords and mantra. Local food advocates only need a handful of words to explain how global food economies require longer transportation networks and, as a result, have larger carbon footprints. This argument, the so-called ‘food miles’ concept, seems intuitive. It just makes sense.

The case for global food, on the other hand, needs more than a handful of words. It’s technical and full of complexity – there is no poetry in global food. It does not capture the imagination of the conscientious consumer, and quite often it will dull the passions of concerned citizens. This is unfortunate, for it will either exasperate the listener’s attention span or, worse yet, lead them to the conclusion that it is merely a desperate and sophisticated attempt to confound the no-brainer logic of food miles. To this I say: there are rarely no-brainers in subjects as complex as agronomy, ecology, and economics, and solutions rarely fit inside a greeting card. The truth is not always simple and sexy, but it can be beautiful in its complexity. And this beauty will not let itself be seduced by the lazy mind.

For the last fifteen years, food miles have been the load-bearing pillar of the local food movement’s architecture. The desire to slow the insidious progress of climate change by reducing food transport distances, and thus carbon emissions, have been a driving factor behind the resurgence of farmers’ markets and local food products in supermarkets. In the past few years, however, the utility of food miles as a measure of environmental impact has been increasingly called into question by agricultural and environmental scientists. New research continues to expose fissures in the food miles argument.

Broadly speaking, the food miles concept relies on three assumptions that are increasingly being proven false. First, food miles assumes that the distance travelled by an agricultural commodity is more relevant in assessing environmental impact than the mode of transportation used and the quantity transported. Second, food miles assumes that transportation from producer to retailer is the most significant phase, environmentally speaking, of an agricultural commodity’s lifecycle. Third, food miles assumes that energy efficiency and carbon intensity in production are constant across all geographies, terrains, and climates. This post will walk you through an explanation of how each of these assumptions rarely holds true.

In 2005, the British government’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) conducted a study of the environmental impact of food transportation in the United Kingdom to determine whether food miles would make a useful measurement for the government’s Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy. The results of the study are fascinating, especially the revelation that food miles, when crudely conceptualized, are almost meaningless and that when analyzed closely, the food miles travelled by global food commodities were actually less harmful to the environment than those travelled by local food commodities. How is this possible, you might ask? It certainly seems to run against common sense.

In fact, it is not too difficult to explain these findings. Put simply, the fuel efficiency and cargo capacity of different modes of transportation matters a whole lot more than the actual distance travelled. A container ship, for instance, can move one tonne of food over one kilometer with less harmful emissions than a light ground vehicle (DEFRA’s fancy terminology for a pickup truck). Global food economies have the most efficient modes of transportation (container ships, freight trains, and heavy highway trucks) as their backbone while local food economies rely exclusively on the less-efficient pickup trucks, minivans, and automobiles. In one startling example, the DEFRA report demonstrates that a British consumer driving 10 kilometers to purchase green beans from Kenya actually expends more carbon per-bean than during the transport of these beans by airplane from Kenya. Had these beans been delivered to the retailer from a local producer by pickup truck, the carbon expended would likely have been even greater.

Sure, a local food advocate might say, these behemoths of global transportation might be more efficient per-tonne per-kilometer, but overall they contribute more harmful emissions because of the sheer volumes they carry and vast distances they travel. They might have marginally smaller carbon footprints per-capita, but in absolute terms the carbon footprint of global transportation far exceeds the carbon footprint of local transportation. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it forgets that humanity’s total appetite will remain constant, if not grow thanks to raising levels of prosperity in the developing world. Reducing the importance of global modes of transportation would only increase the prevalence of less-efficient local modes of transportation. If we could wave a magic wand and replace the existing global food economy with local equivalents, it would eliminate the enormous carbon footprint of global food transportation. Unfortunately, it would produce an even large carbon footprint resulting from a veritable army of farmers in pickup trucks (many of which aren’t the most environmentally friendly vehicles). This argument has recently been made by David Owen in his new book Green Metropolis.

These findings certainly cast doubt on the relevance of food miles and the sustainability of local food overall, but ultimately they will likely become little more than a footnote in the rapidly growing anti-localization literature. Their relative unimportance results from the same factors that disprove the second food miles assumption, that transportation is the most impactful phase, environmentally speaking, of an agricultural commodity’s lifecycle. Recent studies criticizing food miles all point out that transportation accounts for a very small percentage of an agricultural commodity’s total carbon footprint. A 2007 study by Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, for instance, found that over the entire lifecycle of the average agricultural commodity consumed in the United States, only 11% of green house gas emissions occurred during transportation. Furthermore, the stage of transport most derided by local food advocates, where commodities are delivered from producer to retailer across vast distances, accounted for only 4% of emissions. Clearly, the second assumption upon which food miles rests (that transportation is the most impactful phase, environmentally speaking, of an agricultural commodity’s lifecycle) does not hold true.

The real culprit is production itself, the stage of the commodity’s lifecycle that occurs before it even leaves the farm. The Carnegie Mellon study found that 83% of emissions occurred during the production phase, highlighting the importance of energy efficient and low-carbon intensity agricultural production. This is where the food miles concept makes another oversight. It fails to consider that longer transport distances are generally a beneficial trade-off for more efficient and less intensive production. Several studies have addressed this question in great detail, and their findings are very illuminating. These studies all point out that local variations in geography, terrain, and climate have profound impacts on the efficiency and intensity of agricultural production. A 2008 study from the University of Toronto found that strawberry farms in hot and sunny California produce, on average, 17 times more strawberries than their equivalents in Ontario. A similar study done by the Cranfield University in the United Kingdom found that 12,000 cut roses produced in Kenya’s favourable climate generated 6,000kg of carbon dioxide while their Dutch competitors required 35,000kg for the same quantity. The DEFRA study (mentioned above) found that British farmers generated 2,394kg of carbon dioxide during the production of a tonne of tomatoes while their Spanish counterparts generated only 630kg. Another study conducted by the Lincoln University in Christchurch, New Zealand came to similar conclusions regarding lamb, apples, dairy products, and onions. For example, the study found that 2,849kg of carbon dioxide are generated during the production one tonne of lamb in the United Kingdom while only 688kg of carbon dioxide are generated during the production of one tonne of lamb on New Zealand’s clover-studded slopes and the subsequent transport of the meat 18,000km to the UK by boat.

This is, essentially, the logic behind global agriculture and the reason that food miles are little better than a “marketing fad” (to quote Pierre Desrochers, author of the University of Toronto study). The distance travelled by an agricultural commodity is not more relevant in assessing environmental impact than the mode of transportation used and the quantity transported. Transportation from producer to retailer is not the most significant phase, environmentally speaking, of an agricultural commodity’s lifecycle. Energy efficiency and carbon intensity are not constant across all geographies, terrains, and climates.

That being said, do not get the impression that I am categorically against local food production. There are some cases where the local agricultural commodity will prove to be the most environmental. A Spaniard should eat Spanish tomatoes. A New Zealander should eat New Zealand lamb. A Californian should eat California strawberries. The important issue here, and this is one place where I can agree with local food advocates, is that consumers put more thought into the provenance of their food. It is one economic activity that is universal to all human beings, and conscientious consumption holds incredible power to remodel the world in which we live. We should all ensure that our consumption patterns will contribute to a sustainable future. Just don’t take for granted that local food is always the answer and that food miles really mean anything.

Quo Vadis Greenpeace?

Greenpeace must be feeling pretty good about themselves right now. Wednesday, after 30 hours of protest, negotiation, and media attention, the environmental group reached a compromise deal with Shell Canada to peacefully end their demonstration at the company’s Muskeg River mine north of Fort McMurray. A group of approximately 20 protestors had entered the isolated facility Tuesday morning, chaining themselves to the mine’s heavy equipment and unfurling a large banner reading TAR SANDS: CLIMATE CRIME. In a surprising move, Shell Canada agreed not to pursue criminal charges, and after an exchange both sides lauded as frank and amicable, the protestors vacated the premises, no doubt satisfied that their mission had succeeded admirably.

And why shouldn’t Greenpeace feel good about the outcome? They managed to hit Shell Canada for the limits in the high-stakes game of civil disobedience and direct political action. Their anti-oil sands message was broadcast loud and clear, and their participants managed to dodge the legal repercussions that are normally anticipated as a kind of battlefield attrition during showdowns of this sort. If that’s not reason enough for Greenpeace to take their celebration to the streets, their adversary’s response certainly must be. Shell practically complimented them on their performance. Paul Hagel, the company spokesman, readily acknowledged the serious impact of climate change, calling the protestors ‘reasonable critics’ of the oil sands industry. Even more shocking, he virtually threw his company’s endorsement behind the environmental group. “We come on an even foot with Greenpeace,” he concluded.

This has got to be one of the most unexpected receptions Greenpeace has ever received from a victim of their political antics. It’s not every day that an energy giant like Shell transforms guerilla protestors into passionate citizens with legitimate political concerns. This rare display of empathy presents Greenpeace with a tremendous opportunity, not to celebrate the utility of direct action and civil disobedience, but to adopt a more positive advocacy role. The beneficial outcome of their Muskeg River mine protest does not vindicate their methods, nor does it promise these methods will deliver further victories. Instead, Greenpeace should take Shell’s magnanimity as an invitation to engage themselves in the legitimate political process. According to John Abbott, Shell’s Executive Vice President of Heavy Oil,

We hope in the future Greenpeace pursues opportunities for open dialogue and civil protest versus these types of illegal actions… Shell has agreed not to pursue criminal charges against the protestors because it does nothing to further the climate change conversation. We rely on democratic processes to determine Canadian CO₂ policy and other important matters.

An olive branch has been extended to Greenpeace, and they find themselves in a terrific position to prove themselves a responsible, respectful, and ultimately more meaningful member of civil society in Alberta.

For most mainstream Albertans, it’s hard to take Greenpeace seriously. Their numerous stunts have tainted the organization’s reputation in the eyes of many citizens and politicians, even among those that share their environmental concerns. Direct action and civil disobedience remain contentious forms of political expression for good reason. It’s a stretch to argue that the political conditions in Alberta are oppressive enough to legitimize these forms of protest. Radical activists will tell you that sometimes it’s alright to break the rules when the rules themselves are unjust. That is hardly the case in Alberta, at least where the freedom of expression is concerned. The gay community has no trouble expressing their dissatisfaction with discriminatory legislation or celebrating their lifestyle with the rest of their community. Pro-life campaigners have no institutional barriers preventing them from renting large obtrusive banner advertisements in our subway stations. Cyclists have no qualms in exercising their legal freedom to ride bicycles en masse and raise awareness for bike-friendly lifestyles. Bob Barker wasn’t stopped at the airport when he flew here to discuss the ethical treatment of our zoo elephant. Heck, they even gave him a podium and a microphone. The point here is that avenues for political expression exist in our province that do not require the abuse and disruption of private property or the defiance of public laws. Countless civil society and special interest groups use them to bring attention and awareness to their issues without unnecessarily breaking laws or unreasonably disrupting the activities of their fellow citizens. Greenpeace does not need to break the rules to get their point across because the rules are not stacked against them. Alberta may not have the perfect democracy, but at least it’s not Nigeria.

Nonetheless, for Greenpeace and their sympathizers, direct action and civil disobedience remain squarely in that grey area between right and wrong. Greenpeace acknowledges the existence of legitimate avenues for political expression in Alberta and, to their credit, they actively and admirably pursue them. Their reports on environmental issues effectively articulate environmental concerns, and they remain influential fulcrums of debate on environmental policy. Still, Greenpeace zealously retains their programme of direct action and civil disobedience. (Less than one month ago, Greenpeace brazenly advertised a ‘climate defenders camp’ where interested individuals could learn “the defence of the planet through civil disobedience”.) They do not justify these actions on the grounds that the rules are exclusionary, however. Instead, their villain is the nebulous mass-hypnosis of oil culture, and their actions are justified as a kind of political wake-up call. They argue that climate change constitutes the clearest and most present danger to humanity. If so, let’s argue about it, with dialogue and reason instead of stunts and antics. That is the burden of democracy. In a society of free-thinking individuals, the right course of action will prevail only when it has been recognized as such by society itself through reasoned and engaging debate. Climate change, and environmental concerns generally, has become one of the most important mainstream political issues across the globe, and environmental policy is increasingly laying the groundwork for a sustainable future. Humanity does not need a wake-up call – it needs a respected and reasonable voice articulating environmental concerns from inside the debate instead of lobbing rocks from outside the arena altogether.

Direct action and civil disobedience, aside from being unnecessary and indefensible in our society, have the additional drawback of incinerating any political goodwill towards Greenpeace’s agenda. These forms of political protest appear unreasonable and unjust, especially when alternate and legitimate avenues for expression exist. Imagine if oil industry advocates in Alberta pursued similar strategies against Greenpeace with such blatant disregard for the law and rights of their fellow citizens. Imagine if Greenpeace fundraisers canvassing on the streets of our cities were systematically targeted and accosted by pro-oil activists. Imagine if Greenpeace meetings were frequently interrupted by chanting crowds in hardhats and oil-stained coveralls. Imagine if slick oil executives chained themselves to the doors of Greenpeace offices, calling for the shutdown of the environmental movement. The public’s estimation of the oil industry would plummet and Greenpeace would be extremely reluctant to appreciate their concerns.

The reality is that both the oil industry and the environmental movement have an important role to play in Alberta’s economic future, and if this future is to be prosperous and sustainable, some kind of constructive relationship between the two will have to develop. In the short and medium term, Alberta’s economy would be well served if both our vast deposits of natural resources and our vast store of knowledge in resource extraction and processing are harnessed. The long term sustainability of this economy hinges of the judicious use of our bounty, however. For this to happen, environmental concerns must be integrated into our political discourse, and this will only occur when those concerns are articulated by respected and authoritative members of society. Greenpeace should actively pursue this role, and the cordial resolution of the Muskeg River mine protest should be taken as an indication that Alberta’s oil-sands industry is prepared to welcome their input as reformed, respectful, and responsible advocate.

Danger! High Voltage: The politics of power lines in Alberta

I have something of a confession to make: I am hopelessly addicted to the computer game Sim City. There’s a special gratification that comes from realizing a grand vision, from managing the affairs of an entire society, from building bridges, providing homes, growing industry, and developing commerce for a bustling metropolis. Oh, and the awesome power! It’s intoxicating, having the total authority to build what you want, when you want it, and wherever it pleases you. Sometimes, in the course of bulldozing a small inner-city airport or razing an entire tract of housing to lay down a new power line, I’ll amuse myself with a silly notion: what if my virtual society was not merely some digital fantasy, but a real city with real citizens? How would they react to the destruction of their homes and businesses simply because they stood in the way of progress? Would they stoically surfer the burden of advancing the common good, or would they rise up and revolt? Then, I chuckle to myself.

I know, this must sound ridiculous, but there’s a certain degree of sinister pleasure that is derived from the act of governing without accountability. It certainly makes things easier when you can build and bulldoze without having to suffer the protestations of community action groups and special interest lobbies, when the worst you have to fear from a bad policy decision is what my municipal politics professor liked to call “people voting with their feet”. The sad reality is that public governance becomes infinitely more complicated when you are dealing with real individuals that have divergent opinions and the right to be heard. In real life there is debate and there is controversy.

A few weeks ago, while reading the Edmonton Journal, I came across the first signs of this public kind of controversy over Bill 50, the Electric Statutes Amendment Act, and some power transmission upgrades. Earlier this month, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), the body that oversees Alberta’s power grid, released their 10-year plan along with cost projections for proposed power projects in the province. Perhaps the most shocking revelation was that roughly $14.5B is required for necessary upgrades to our provincial transmission system’s capacity. These upgrades involve additional high-capacity lines between Calgary and Edmonton as well as additional high-capacity lines connecting the Industrial Heartland northeast of Edmonton, Fort McMurray, and southern Alberta’s wind farms to the grid. The construction and operation of transmission lines is financed entirely by private Transmission Facility Operators, and their costs are recouped through transmission rates charged to electricity consumers. According to one article in the Journal, the proposed upgrades could translate into a $14.50 increase in the average Albertan’s monthly power bill, effectively doubling the rate paid for electricity transmission.

It is evident from letters written to the Journal that ratepayers harbour deep suspicions regarding these proposed upgrades. Parrish Tung, from Elk Point, compares them to a private restaurant that receives public money to increase its ability to turn a private profit. He writes:

Here are two different scenarios:

-Suppose I own a restaurant. My business is so good that I need to add a new stove to increase my production. As such, I ask my town to charge all residents $10 per month so that I can improve my service. What do you think of that?

-We now will have to pay more money on our power bill so that the power company can increase its capacity to sell power and make money. What do you think of that?

What is the difference? Not much.

These suspicions seem to deepen with regards to a proposed intertie with Montana mentioned in the AESO’s 10-year plan. Ray Lutz, in his letter, writes “Alberta taxpayers should not have to pay for transmission lines to enable privately owned electrical generating companies to sell their power to the U.S.”

The AESO’s 10-year plan is only half of the transmission upgrade controversy, however. Two day before this plan was released, Bill 50 was introduced in the legislature. Bill 50 threatens to change the way transmission infrastructure projects are approved. Currently, the AESO must approve all proposed transmission infrastructure projects, after which the Alberta Utilities Commission holds a public ‘needs’ hearing to determine whether or not, well, the project is needed. Basically, these hearings gather input from the public at large along with the province’s electrical system operators and owners to weigh the proposed project’s benefits against its social, financial, and environmental costs. Bill 50 proposes to allow the Minister of Energy to designate any project a Critical Transmission Infrastructure project, which would result in this project bypassing the ‘needs’ hearing and heading directly to the ‘siting’ hearing where the exact placement of the transmission lines is determined.

Opponents to the transmission upgrades – largely wary ratepayers and landowners along the proposed infrastructure corridors – as well as the opponents of the provincial government have taken these issues as an opportunity to deride the Progressive Conservative administration and Alberta’s power industry. A picture is being painted where greedy power suppliers and transmission facility operators are eyeing the lucrative energy markets south of the border, sticking Albertans with the bill for a multi-billion dollar extension chord, and using their government cronies to deflect popular opposition to their scheme. Feedback from Albertans, like the above letters, for instance, shows that this perception has traction, and some in the media have understandably predicted that transmission upgrades and Bill 50 promise to become the autumn’s high-voltage issue.

When asked why Bill 50 was introduced with only a week remaining in the Spring sitting, the government responded it was so Albertans could spend the summer familiarizing themselves with this complicated issue. I would like to contribute some insight and hopefully dispel the popular apprehension towards transmission upgrades outlined above. These upgrades are not part of any nefarious corporate plot, and while they would require rate increases and the assembly of private lands, they are absolutely necessary. Corporate greed versus the ratepayer is not the discussion Albertans should be having this summer. Rather, they should be discussing whether the powers granted to the provincial government in Bill 50 are the most responsible manner in which to proceed with essential investments in our transmission infrastructure.

First, it is extremely critical that every Albertan understands why these upgrades are absolutely necessary. Alberta’s recent boom in population growth and industrial development, especially considering the energy intensive lifestyles of the digital generation, have placed an enormous burden on a provincial power grid that has not seen any significant investment in the past twenty years. To put this in perspective, demands on the power grid have increased by the equivalent of a city twice the size of Red Deer every year since 2001. Our transmission lines are running dangerously close to over-capacity, increasing wastage through line loss and raising the specter of rolling blackouts throughout the province. When power lines are forced to carry excessive amounts of electricity, electrical energy is transformed into heat and power is lost. This so-called line loss is increasingly becoming a problem in Alberta. Last year, $220M worth of electricity was lost this way, the equivalent of power for 350,000 homes. Increased line losses are not nearly as frightening as the prospects of rolling blackouts, though. When total transmission capacity is used, but demand continuously increases, the power must be shut off somewhere to prevent a literal meltdown of the power grid. The AESO orders different sub-units of the grid to take turns shedding load with power cuts, resulting in homes, businesses, and essential services going without power. Line loss and the risk of rolling blackouts are the dangers that come with a power grid dangerously close to over-capacity. This is the reality facing Alberta, and this is the reason these upgrades are necessary. This is not a case of the power industry charging us for frivolous transmission projects to line their own pockets. These upgrades to Alberta’s transmission infrastructure are essential, and they cannot be put off any longer.

Second, all Albertans must understand that everyone benefits from paying into a dependable, effective, and safe power grid. Whether at home, at the office, or at the factory, the lights should come on when you flip the switch. Now, some Albertans seem to deny that they should have to pay for, or indeed have any responsibility towards the power grid. They seem to think that the grid, and any upgrades required to it, should be the responsibility of the power generators, since they are the ones making money from having it around, after all. This simplistic view of the power grid belies its true function, however. The power grid is not merely an extension of the power plant. It is its own entity that allows both consumers and producers to efficiently buy and sell from the electricity marketplace. It functions like our province’s highway system. I hate to break it to you, but our highways were not built for road trips to the mountains. They were built to move goods throughout the province, from producer to market, and from market to consumer. Now, let’s apply the logic from the above argument to highways. Would it make sense to view the highways as an extension of factory and farm, and required producers to pay for them exclusively? Of course not. These highways are a public good, just like our power grid, and whether they are paid for through taxes or through publicly regulated rates, they must be maintained collectively and equitably. In Alberta, transmission rates are charged on a per-use basis. Agricultural and residential land owners, who have come out most vocally against increases to the transmission rates, might be surprised to learn that in 2008, they paid only 4% and 16% of the total transmission costs respectively. The big payers were commercial and industrial power users who paid 19% and 61% respectively. All Albertans must accept that they are responsible for their fair share of the power grid, and that increased rates are simply the unpleasant side effects of growing a dependable, effective, and safe power grid.

Third, apprehensive Albertans should reconsider their skepticism towards the proposed intertie with Montana. The simple fact is that interties are good for the grid and good for the economy, and Alberta remains one of the least connected jurisdictions in the North American power system. Our symbiotic relationship with British Columbia does a good job of illustrating the benefits of an intertie. The majority of Alberta’s power generation is provided by coal and natural gas power plants. Unfortunately, these forms of generation, unlike hydroelectric generators, for instance, cannot be shut down and restarted efficiently. The principle here is similar to the principle that makes idling your car engine at a red light more efficient than shutting off your engine and restarting it when the light turns green. Thus, every evening, when the demand for power tapers off, our coal and natural gas power plants are left running throughout the night. Rather than squander this power, however, we export it to British Columbia whose hydroelectric dams are easily powered down or brought back online with the simple closing or opening of a valve. The intertie allows the water level of the hydroelectric dams in British Columbia to rise overnight while using power from Alberta that would have otherwise been wasted, benefiting the power systems in both provinces. This arrangement further benefits Alberta since the export of this electricity brings money into our province. Again, an analogy with highway infrastructure helps render publicly funded interties more palatable. Border crossing infrastructure, even though it is intended to facilitate the export of goods to other provinces and other countries for private profit, remains publicly funded because it brings money into our province. Interties strengthen the power grid and strengthen the provincial economy, and the insular mindset that has greeted the proposed intertie with Montana should be abandoned.

Clearly, these proposed upgrades to our power grid’s internal and external connectivity rest on a sound case, even if they would require increases to transmission rates. At this point, the Montana intertie remains a mere proposal, but upgrades to the internal grid, especially along the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, have been on the table for a number of years. Unfortunately, these much needed projects have remained bogged down in regulatory quagmire as the load placed upon the grid increasingly reaches critical levels. Stubborn landowners along the proposed corridors have exploited the existing regulatory regime to slow down the approval of these projects. They do not want power lines crossing their property, and rather than waiting for the siting hearings, they have used the needs hearing to stall the process, thereby getting two swings at the same ball. While their concerns are understandable, there must be some point at which the needs of the many outweigh the preferences of the few. Imagine a busy avenue with constant congestion that is lined on one side with sprawling residential lots. The city decides to offer the property owners fair market value for a portion of each lot so that they can add another lane to the avenue. Is it reasonable to allow the owners of these residential properties to continuously reject offers from the city or, more to the point, delay the question? Evidently, Bill 50’s provisions allowing the government to bypass the needs hearing and head directly to the siting hearing would be instrumental to breaking up the existing deadlock between regulators and landowners. Perhaps, in the case of regulatory impasse, infrastructure improvements should be elevated to the domain of public policy. If so, we must consider the degree to which we are comfortable with our government holding this function.

Earlier in Spring session, the government passed Bill 19, the Land Assembly Project Area Act, which allows the government to designate an infrastructure corridor then freeze development and compel landowners to sell their property along this corridor. This could conceivably be used to bypass a siting hearing for transmission lines, which are specifically mentioned in Bill 19.  Once Bill 50 passes this autumn (which it surely will), the government will find itself with an awesome arsenal of powers to use in the improvement of the province’s electrical infrastructure. Essentially, Bill 19 empowered the government with the authority to bypass the siting hearings while Bill 50 will empower them with the authority to bypass the needs hearing. Come autumn, they will have legislated back-doors to the public portions of the regulatory process. This is a tremendous amount of power to have at the disposal of government technocrats, and it was no accident that I began this post with references to the computer game Sim City. It provides an easy, if not amusing way to conceptualize the powers contained within Bills 19 and 50. There is one important difference, however. In reality, these planning decisions could be exposed to public scrutiny and, the government could be held accountable for them. Thus, any consideration of whether the government should be empowered to direct electrical infrastructure improvements must be made alongside considerations of this government’s transparency and accountability.

The issue here is not whether the power industry is trying to fleece ratepayers out of their money. Alberta’s power grid is overdue for an upgrade, and ratepayers – whether agricultural, residential, commercial, or industrial – should be prepared to pay their fair share. Thus far, regulatory impasse has stalled these critical upgrades, but the government stands ready to break the deadlock. It proposes to do this by empowering itself with the ability to circumvent either or both steps of the regulatory process completely. Albertans have until autumn to decide whether their government could exercise this tremendous power with transparency and accountability. It certainly gives us something to think about every time we flip a switch this summer.

Getting the Balance All Wrong: Bill 44 and Alberta’s human rights regime

Over the past few days, a couple people have politely pointed out to me that I promised another post on Bill 44. The more impatient ones have pointed out that it was promised to appear last Thursday evening! For this, I apologize. Life did that thing to me, you know, the thing where it interferes with your best-laid plans after tricking you into thinking they would somehow work. In any case, I’ve decided to spend my first free evening in a while laying down my final thoughts on Bill 44 before everyone forgets what Bill 44 was and why we cared about it!

 

From the beginning, it seemed that rhetoric on Bill 44 was sharply polarized into two absolutist camps, and little changed throughout the debates. For the opposition, Bill 44 was a bill about gay rights, and to go against it seemed to imply that you were in support of institutionalized homophobia. For the government, Bill 44 was a bill about parental rights, and to go against it seemed to imply that you had no respect for the important role a parent plays in their child’s education. Rob Anderson, MLA for Airdrie-Chestermere, articulated this particular message quite clearly.

 

“I think it’s… disgusting that a parent’s tolerance in education can be called into question because they believe that, frankly, they would like to teach their kids in a home setting about these very sensitive topics… I think I can give a balanced education to my children on those things, and I believe I can do so in a nonbigoted and completely tolerant way. So I don’t need people [in the opposition] telling me that I’m some kind of uneducated moron. Effectively, that’s what this debate has been.”

 

I’m not going to talk about “what this debate has been.” Third reading has come and passed, and the time to talk about the politics of Bill 44 has gone with it. I’m not going to talk about the legal morass this bill invites upon our public education system either. Ken Chapman’s post does an excellent job of covering that topic, for those who are interested. Instead, I’m going to talk about what this debate means – I’m going to talk about the negative impact this bill will have on the advancement of sexual tolerance in our province.

 

My concerns with Bill 44 do not follow from any denial that a parent has the right to involve themselves in their child’s education. Nor do they follow from any belief that the state should have the ultimate authority over the education of its youngest citizens. That position would be absurd and untenable, and I certainly have no problem with enshrining the parent’s right to opt their children out of instruction on specific topics. I should point out that, ideally, I would prefer to see this right enshrined into the legislation that pertains to education (in our province, the School Act) although the idea of recognizing this concept in human rights legislation does not leave me chilled. The important issue here, no matter where this right is recognized, is that it appears in a form that is properly balanced against other fundamental rights. There is where Bill 44 fails. The way in which parental rights in education have been conceptualized in this bill threatens the fabric of this province’s human rights regime. Our government has gotten the balance completely wrong.

 

Section 9 of this bill, which now finds itself in the Human Rights Act of Alberta as the newly added Section 11.1, recognizes the parent’s right to opt their child out of “courses of study, educational programs or instructional materials” that “include subject-matter that deals primarily and explicitly with… sexual orientation.” At first glance, this little clause might seem rather innocuous. Some might feel that the same principles that allow opt-outs for sexual education should apply here. Indeed, many have made that argument. That is what Mr. Anderson means when he refers to parents that “would like to teach their kids in a home setting about these very sensitive topics.”

 

Consider this scenario: A high school social studies teacher decides to show the class a movie as part of a unit about their rights as citizens and the importance of tolerance in diverse societies. The teacher chooses Milk, a 2008 bio-pic staring Sean Penn that recounts the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the United States. Sure, this teacher could have just as easily chosen Crash, or To Kill a Mockingbird, or, hell, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, but for whatever reason they did not. Now, it would be almost impossible to argue that Milk is not “instructional material” that deals “primarily and explicitly” with “sexual orientation”. For that matter, any class that attempted to teach gay rights or tolerance for minority sexual oritenations would fall under the purview of the new Section 11.1 for the very same reasons. Effectively, we now have a situation where a parent can remove their child from a class on a particular human right because they feel it to be a “sensitive topic”.

 

One axiom upon which our liberal democracy relies is that an individual’s liberties and rights extend as far as their neighbours’, as if there were some boundary formed where fundamental rights collide. This axiom allows us to demarcate these boundaries in a way that serves to moderate political behavior in a just and peaceful manner. My right to express myself freely, for instance, extends as far as my neighbour’s right to not be maligned based on their immutable characteristics. Or, to chose a more simplistic formulation of this principle, my right to extend my fist ends at my neighbour’s nose.

 

There is no boundary to be crossed, however, in educating someone on their rights and the rights of their fellow citizens. No citizen has the right to remain ignorant of the rights and liberties that moderate their society. This cannot be the case, otherwise rights would drift derelict, never taking root in the citizenry, never instilling them with the respect and tolerance required for truly liberal democracy. Would it be reasonable to allow me to extend my fist if I were permitted to ignore where my neighbour’s nose began, or to remain ignorant of the simple fact that such an action would be painful? Of course, this could not be considered reasonable. In fact, a great many would consider it criminally negligent. The principle that rights, and the boundaries between, must be known and understood is essential to our liberal society. Our MLAs recognize this principle. It’s what permits them to subject each other to views and values upon which there is fundamental disagreement in our legislature without driving any of them to give up their jobs.

 

Clearly, the changes brought by Bill 44 to our Human Rights Act have ignored this principle. Our government has made it a human right to remain ignorant of where our rights, not to mention the rights of others, begin and end. Sadly, this is not the only way in which the government has compromised human rights in our province with Bill 44.

 

Bill 44 has also allowed parental rights in education to undermine one the most fundamental principles in Canada’s rights regime: group recognition rights. Canada’s multiculturalism relies on the proper recognition of – not to mention respect for – difference. When a particular group’s difference from the whole is not recognized, their identity is denied social significance and, in turn, their group is refused dignity as a respected component of society. When a particular group’s difference from the whole is misrepresented, the effects are even worse; their identity takes on a false social significance. For any group in a multicultural society, being ignored is bad enough, but being misunderstood is far worse.

 

Unfortunately, this is precisely what Bill 44 does. It misrepresents minority sexual orientations and entrenches these misrepresentations and misunderstandings into our province’s human rights regime. It does this by acknowledging sexual orientation as a “sensitive topic” and by allowing the same principles that permit parental opt outs of instruction on sexual education to operate in the context of education about sexual orientation.

 

Now, I have no problems with the principle that recognizes the parent’s right to remove their child from sexual education. Human sexuality has both G-rated and R-rated components. The G-rated components of love and romance, for instance, are well covered in the curriculum. I’m sure many of us remember Romeo and Juliet or The Taming of the Shrew from high school English class. This instruction is accomplished without opt outs and without uproar. The R-rated components of human sexuality, on the other hand, are properly considered “sensitive topics”, and the parents are rightly permitted to excuse their children from instruction on human reproduction and sexual behaviour, for instance.

 

My problem with Bill 44 is that it fails to acknowledge this important distinction between G-ratings and R-ratings for minority sexual orientations. During debate on Bill 44, Dave Hancock, the Minister of Education, stated that “sexual orientation is part and parcel of human sexuality. In our mandated policy to school boards right now if they are teaching anything about human sexuality, they have to give notice to parents.” Clearly, the minister is not talking about Romeo and Juliet. He is talking about human reproduction, sexual behaviour, and the other sensitive, R-rated components. His suggestion that sexual orientation is “part and parcel” of these components carries troubling and insidious implications.

 

The act of subsuming sexual orientation – especially when, in the context of Bill 44, it has exclusively meant minority sexual orientations – within the R-rated aspects of human sexuality debases these sexual orientations. It transforms them into taboo subjects and shrouds them in vulgarity and lewdness. It denies them the capacity of romantic and familial love, and it reduces them to lustful fornication. Essentially, it denies these minority sexual orientations equivalency to the majority, and I’m sure the unfortunate irony that this bill’s explicit intent was to recognize this equivalency is lost on no one.

 

Those are my concerns with Bill 44. They have nothing to do with the principle that parents should have the right to involve themselves in their child’s education. They do not rely on a vision of public education where the state has ultimate authority over the education of its youngest citizens. I imagine you would be hard-pressed to find someone in support of this chalkboard totalitarianism.

 

Instead, my concerns are that Bill 44 has granted an individual the right to willfully ignore the rights of the fellow citizens. This cannot be a legitimate human right, and it should not have any place in our human rights legislation. To hold any value, rights must be known and understood. Those boundaries that moderate our society cannot serve their purpose unless all citizens know where they lie and appreciate why they exist.

 

Furthermore, Bill 44 misrepresents minority sexual orientations. If these sexual orientations are to truly receive the equivalency that allows for their inclusion in the prohibited grounds for discrimination, their differences from the majority must be properly recognized and properly respected. To allow complete ignorance of them on the false grounds that they are somehow entirely “part and parcel” of an R-rated curriculum denies them this recognition and this respect. It suggests that they are lewd, that they do not belong in public.

 

So, my concerns with Bill 44 are not, to borrow the words of Mr. Anderson, that “uneducated morons” with be unable “to teach their kids in a home setting about these very sensitive topics” in a “nonbigoted and completely tolerant way.” No, the reality is that calling the entirety of any sexual orientation a “sensitive topic” is tantamount to intolerance itself. My concerns with Bill 44 are that it has introduced a dangerous conceptualization of parental rights in education into our Human Rights Act. It has destroyed the balance and eroded the boundaries between two fundamental sets of rights, and it has done this in a way that leaves me deeply concerned for the advancement of sexual tolerance in Alberta.

Bill 44 and the Evolution Opt-Out Myth: Public discourse in Alberta fails again

(This post was actually written on May 18th)

 

Recently, Albertans have been getting hot and bothered over the issue of

parental rights in education. The provincial legislature is currently

debating Bill 44, a bill which would, among other matters, grant parents

the inalienable right to remove their children from classes on religion and

sexuality, including sexual orientation. This comes as a disappointment

to many who would have otherwise applauded Bill 44’s other provisions.

These include enshrining sexual orientation into human rights law and

rendering the provincial body that considers human rights complaints

more independent.

 

Sadly, as the controversy grows and the words ‘parental opt-out’

increasing drift into conversation, I have found the public discourse

surrounding Bill 44 to be rife with myth and misinformation. When Bill 44

is brought up in discussion, it seems the most frequent response is

something similar to: “Oh, that’s the one that would let parents take their

kids out of classes about evolution.” Even Delwin Vriend, whose appeal to

the Supreme Court of Canada was responsible for the inclusion of sexual

orientation into Alberta’s human rights law, has said this regarding the

notorious parental opt-out clause: “Unfortunately when we start to talk

about being able to pull kids out of class for various reasons, including

talk about gays and lesbians or evolution, that definitely points to a very

backwards people.” 

 

I can tell you with certainty that it does not appear likely Bill 44 would

permit parents to remove their children from a science class teaching

evolution. Indeed, I find it quite distressing that discussion surrounding

this bill has strayed so far from relevancy and distracted public attention from

the truly important questions raised by the bill.

 

If I had to pinpoint the genesis of this evolution opt-out myth, I would

chose the April 28th press conference when a reporter asked if Bill 44

would allow parents to pull their children from a class on evolution and

the Premier mistakenly responded “The parents would have the

opportunity to make that choice.” The following day in question period,

Brain Mason, the leader of the provincial NDP, asked the Premier why he

was attempting to transform Alberta into a 1920s Arkansas. Of course,

instead of Arkansas, Mr. Mason meant Tennessee where, in 1925, school

teacher John Scopes was put on trial for the crime of teaching evolution.

Liberal opposition member Dave Taylor only made matters worse when

his attempts at word play with the now infamous Scopes Monkey trial

were interpreted as a racial slur made towards Lindsay Blackett, the

government’s Minister of Culture and Community Spirit.

 

Since then, the government and the provincial PC caucus has gone to

great lengths to dispel the evolution opt-out myth. Dr. Neil Brown, a

former university biology professor, has reiterated that Bill 44 would only

allow parents to opt their children out of classes that deal explicitly with

religion, and not “tangentially, peripherally, or consequentially” with

religious subject matters. He stated emphatically that “If it allowed

parents or students to opt out of a curriculum dealing with evolution or

biological sciences, I could not vote for this.” 

 

Dave Hancock, the Minister of Education, reaffirmed this clarification of

Bill 44’s provisions, stating that the bill deals only with “explicitly

teaching about religion and not using a religious lens on all other

curriculum to determine whether [the parents] disagree with anything

that’s being taught in science or math or social studies or literature.” 

 

Even the Premier has seemingly gone back on his assertion, although he

has stopped short of outright denying it (my guess is that he’s far too

proud and stubborn to admit he misspoke). When asked by Dr. Swann,

Liberal leader of the opposition, in question period whether Bill 44 would

permit an evolution opt-out, the Premier no longer maintained that

“parents would have the opportunity to make that choice.” Instead, he

replied that Bill 44 “does not give the parents the right to opt out of other

instruction on religious grounds… it’s very clear in the bill, and I’m…

asking all Albertans to read the bill.”

 

So let’s humour the Premier, and read the offending section of Bill 44.

Section 9 of the bill states: 

 

(1) A [school] board as defined in the School Act shall provide 

notice to a parent or guardian of a student where courses of 

study, educational programs or instructional materials, or 

instruction or exercises, prescribed under that Act include 

subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or 

sexual orientation.

(2) Where a teacher or other person providing instruction, 

teaching a course of study or educational program or using the 

instructional materials referred to in subsection (1) receives a 

written request signed by a parent or guardian of a student that 

the student be excluded from the instruction, course of study, 

educational program or use of instructional materials, the 

teacher or other person shall in accordance with the request of 

the parent or guardian and without academic penalty permit the 

student 

(a) to leave the classroom or place where the instruction, 

course of study or educational program is taking place or 

the instructional materials are being used for the duration 

of the part of the instruction, course of study or 

educational program, or the use of the instructional 

materials, that includes the subject-matter referred to in 

subsection (1), or  

(b) to remain in the classroom or place without taking part 

in the instruction, course of study or educational 

program or using the instructional materials. 

 

Clearly, it does not appear that the bill would allow parents to remove their

children from a science class teaching evolution. It would not allow a parent

to remove their children from a language arts class teaching Inherit the Wind, a

book written about the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial. If, however, a class

were to teach a unit on the religious reasons that certain elements of the

Christian faith reject evolution theory, it seems likely that Bill 44 would

apply. Bill 44 would not leave any and all subjects to the discretion of

parents; it would only leave explicitly religious and sexual subjects

(including sexual orientation) to the discretion of parents.

 

Hopefully, public discourse on Bill 44 will abandon its obsession with

evolution opt-outs and focus itself on the issues of relevance raised by

Bill 44. I certainly hope it would, because these issues are of extreme

importance to the democratic fabric of Alberta’s society and there is

precious little time remaining before Bill 44 becomes law.

 

Albertans should stop debating the role of instruction on evolution in the

classroom for the moment. Instead, we should be asking ourselves

whether our classrooms ought to serve as a religiously and sexually

pluralistic forum or a religiously and sexually neutral forum. Would our

multiculturalism be better served if Alberta’s school children were

required to receive an introduced to all major religions and sexualities in

an unbiased manner? Or, should religious and sexual education remain

the exclusive domain of the family?

 

These questions lead to another important issue raised by this bill: the

degree to which parents and the degree to which society, through their

government, should be allowed to influence the development of their

youngest generations. The authority to remove their children from

classes on religion and sexuality is already granted to parents through

the School Act and Alberta Education policy. Should this authority remain

a parental privilege recognized only in Alberta Education policy and the

School Act, or should it be hardened into an inalienable human right?

Should the parent’s right and responsibility to provide input into their

child’s education remain the purview of a governmental department, or

be elevated to the purview of a quasi-judicial Human Rights Commission? 

 

Furthermore, if the parent’s role in their child’s education does become

accepted as an inalienable human right, Bill 44 raises the question of

where to draw the boundary when two sets of fundamental rights grind

up against each other. Is the right to express your sexual orientation

without discrimination in any way compromised by a parent’s right to

influence their children’s education on sexual orientation rights?

 

With any luck, Albertans will forgot about the evolution opt-out myth for

the time being and focus on these important questions raised by Bill 44.

We must allow public discourse to evolve into reasoned debate before

time runs out, bill becomes law, and citizens regret having asked all the

wrong questions.

Welcome!

Dear friends, family, acquaintances, and random cyber-wanderers,

 

It has finally happened. At last, I have succumb to the allure of new social media. Yesterday, I caved in and joined Twitter. Today, I am starting a new blog.

Since high school, I have derived considerable pleasure from the discussion and debate of philosophical and political subjects. Extending these interactions to cyberspace seems like the logical next step.

The name of my blog is a direct reference to the amusing premise behind two episodes from one of my favorite television programs, The West Wing. In these episodes, Leo McGarry, the fictional White House Chief of Staff, recounts to his staff an anecdote.

He tells how

Andrew Jackson, in the main foyer of his White House, had a big block of cheese… I am making a mental list of those who are snickering, and even as I speak, I am preparing appropriate retribution. The block of cheese was huge, over two tons, and it was there for any and all who might be hungry. Jackson wanted the White House to belong to the people, so from time to time, he opened his doors to those who wished an audience… It is in the spirit of Andrew Jackson that I, from time to time, ask senior staff to have face-to-face meetings with those people representing organizations who have a difficult time getting our attention. I know the more jaded among you see this as something rather beneath you, but I assure you that listening to the voices of passionate Americans is beneath no one, and surely not beneath the people’s servants…

Sadly, I have no White House and I have no senior staff. I am not even American, and I could care less whether your organization has a hard time getting anyone’s attention. I don’t even have an actual big block of cheese. Nonetheless, I enjoy tremendously the sentiment behind Leo’s anecdote, and it is in that spirit that I am starting this blog. I am encouraging everyone to leave feedback on my posts and on the comments of others, as long as everyone remains reasoned and respectful.

One final note: In a few minutes, I will be posting a piece I wrote about Bill 44 last week. Tomorrow evening, I anticipate posting another piece on Bill 44. Don’t worry; I won’t be turning my blog into a single issue echo chamber. It’s simply that, due to work, I’ve been following this bill very closely and have had a lot to say on the subject in these past couple of weeks!