A timely article by the excellent Leah Maclaren reminds us all of what five minutes thought might easily tell us: sending used baby carriers, slings, pacifiers and sippy cups to the war-torn and displaced is not an efficient use of our commendable and well-meaning charitable impulses.
Apparently, there are any number of charitable organizations out there with names like Ring Slings and Baby Things for Syrian Refugees. But, as any aid worker on the ground will tell you, they really don't need the processing and logistical hassles of transporting and distributing these used goods, especially when the real need is for essentials like food, water, shelter, medical care and emotional support. There is even a Twitter hashtag #SWEDOW ("Stuff WE DOn't Want") for this; it is not a new phenomenon.
So, instead of sending baby accoutrements, hand-knitted blankets and tents, just donate money to a reputable NGO with a presence on the ground, and they will use it to fund trained people to assess the needs and fill them as efficiently as possible. If you really have excess baby gear, then sell it locally and donate the money, or give it to needy individuals in your own area.
But, please, don't send your Baby Bjorns and Bugaboos to Syrian refugees in Hungary and Croatia. They really don't need them, and you are creating more problems than you are solving, however well-meaning your impulses may be.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Only in Texas - negative electricity prices
Slate Magazine reported an interesting, if somewhat bewildering, turn of events in the American state of Texas the other day, when circumstances conspired to make the local price of electricity in Texas negative.
We are perhaps used to thinking of Texas as an exclusively oil-and-gas state, home to rednecks, tycoons and Tea Party-voting ranchers. But Texas is also home to over 10,000 wind turbines, and it produces 9% of its electricity from wind power, over twice the US average. So, on a windy night, when there is little electricity demand requiring baseload generation, wind can actually become the dominant source of electricity there.
OK, but negative prices?
This unusual occurrence is the result of four factors specific to Texas' electricity system. One, it is an electricity island, not connected to neighbouring states, so that it can neither directly import power from other states, nor, by the same token, can it export surplus electricity production elsewhere. Secondly, the aforementioned relatively large wind generation capacity in the state. Thirdly, the Texas electricity grid has a unique system of purchasing its power through online real-time auctions from providers, whereby, every five minutes, it buys the cheapest electricity being offered in order to fill the demand from its consumers. And finally, wind operators receive a $23/megawatt-hour federal tax credit, whatever the price of electricity sold, so it is always in their interests to produce and sell as much power as they can.
Given these factors, on the particular night in question, the spot price of Texas' electricity fell from $17.40/megawatt-hour earlier in the evening down to zero by 1:45am, and then into negative prices for the rest of the night until about 8:15am, as it was cost effective for wind turbine operators to pay the state's electricity system to take power off their hands. At 5:45am, it reached its lowest cost at -$8.52/megawatt-hour. Oh, for a cheap and reliable battery storage system!
As the Slate article remarks: "Only in Texas, folks".
We are perhaps used to thinking of Texas as an exclusively oil-and-gas state, home to rednecks, tycoons and Tea Party-voting ranchers. But Texas is also home to over 10,000 wind turbines, and it produces 9% of its electricity from wind power, over twice the US average. So, on a windy night, when there is little electricity demand requiring baseload generation, wind can actually become the dominant source of electricity there.
OK, but negative prices?
This unusual occurrence is the result of four factors specific to Texas' electricity system. One, it is an electricity island, not connected to neighbouring states, so that it can neither directly import power from other states, nor, by the same token, can it export surplus electricity production elsewhere. Secondly, the aforementioned relatively large wind generation capacity in the state. Thirdly, the Texas electricity grid has a unique system of purchasing its power through online real-time auctions from providers, whereby, every five minutes, it buys the cheapest electricity being offered in order to fill the demand from its consumers. And finally, wind operators receive a $23/megawatt-hour federal tax credit, whatever the price of electricity sold, so it is always in their interests to produce and sell as much power as they can.
Given these factors, on the particular night in question, the spot price of Texas' electricity fell from $17.40/megawatt-hour earlier in the evening down to zero by 1:45am, and then into negative prices for the rest of the night until about 8:15am, as it was cost effective for wind turbine operators to pay the state's electricity system to take power off their hands. At 5:45am, it reached its lowest cost at -$8.52/megawatt-hour. Oh, for a cheap and reliable battery storage system!
As the Slate article remarks: "Only in Texas, folks".
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
What I don't know about genetics and gene therapy
Once, several years ago, I did an online university course on genetics, just for the hell of it. At the time, it all seemed to make sense, and I did fine on the quizzes and tests. Recently, though, the more I think about it, the more I realize that there are some pretty fundamental parts of the workings of genes that I just don't understand. On the basis that a little knowledge is probably a dangerous thing, I'm here to appeal to the Internet community to set me straight.
Here's what I think I understand:
So what do I know about gene therapy? As the name suggests, it refers to techniques, still largely experimental, that use genes to treat or prevent disease. This may be by replacing a mutated gene that causes disease with a healthy copy of the gene, getting rid of or making inactive a mutated gene that is not functioning properly, or even introducing a completely new gene into the body in order to fight a particular disease. Apparently, inserting a new gene directly into a cell usually does not work, and so a carrier called a vector, such as a modified virus, can be used to deliver the gene (yes, just like on Helix!).
Right. But, doesn't this mean that the new gene would need to be inserted into every cell in the body (there doesn't seem much point in just one or two cells having an altered copy of a particular gene)? Is it even allowed for different cells to have a different set of genes (I always thought that every cell had exactly the same set of genes/DNA, just that some cells expressed some genes and some others)? Or is it, for example, sufficient for all the lung cells to host the altered genes in order to have a beneficial effect on a lung disease (not that that would be particularly easy in itself)?
In fact, all of this begs an even more fundamental question: how does a particular cell know which genes to turn on, and which not, in the first place? How does one hair follicle on a black and white cat know to switch on the white hair gene and the one next door to it to switch on the black hair gene? And, for that matter, could a cell in your elbow have a gene for blue eyes switched on, and, if it did, what difference would this make? The more I think about it, the more questions I could come up with.
Now, I know that not many people ever read this blog, and most of those are probably not well-versed in genomics. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained: maybe some kind soul will put me out of my misery.
UPDATE
My daughter actually came through for me on this one (she's doing a Biology major, and is currently interning in a genetics lab). Perhaps predictably, I got a lot more information than I either need or understand, but the quick summary is that, as I suspected, gene therapy is still pretty much pie in the sky, a cool idea whose time has not yet come.
Viruses can indeed be used to introduce new genes into cells, but the science is as yet very inexact. For example, a gene might end up integrating into a part of the DNA where it can't be expressed, or where it is inappropriately expressed all the time, or even into the middle of another gene, thus screwing up both genes. There are other methods of injecting DNA into cells, but they just introduce the new material into the cytoplasm of the cell, not the nucleus, and so it will gradually degrade over time. Yet another line of approach might be to introduce new genes into pluripotent stem cells, and then engineer these into the right kind of cell for the required purpose (all of which can indeed be done), but then the problem of delivery still remains.
And, yes, the new genes do have to be introduced to the right part of the body (whether that be bone marrow, muscles, lungs, etc) to have the desired effect, otherwise they will not be able to be properly expressed and will not be able to carry out the required function, and at present there seems to be no clever way of doing that. As for how to deliver new genes into the central nervous system or across the blood/brain barrier (for neurodegenerative diseases, for example), that is a whole new set of problems. And, even once introduced, it is still not clear whether the new altered cells will persist and proliferate, or just degrade and fade.
Finally, on my more general questions at the end:
The way in which different genes are expressed in different parts of the body is, well, complicated, involving tissue-specific transcriptional regulators, factors and enhancers, etc. I don't think I even want to go there. Because of these regulators, though, it is apparently very unlikely that a gene for blue eyes would find itself turned on in an elbow, to use my random example. And even if it did, and a blue pigment was created in an elbow cell (whether this be in bone, blood, cartilage or whatever), it would have no way of physically expressing itself, and so would just degrade and be removed.
The colour of cat hair is apparently a whole subject unto itself, and incredibly complicated and convoluted. Those interested would be better served by going to the detailed Wikipedia article on the subject, than having me try to explain it.
So, it seems that sometimes a little knowledge may actually be safer than getting totally tied up in a whole bunch of things I really don't understand, and don't have several years to devote to figuring out. Sad, but true.
Here's what I think I understand:
- The nuclei of pretty much every cell in our bodies each contain 46 chromosomes, which are made up of long strands of DNA, cunningly twisted, coiled and folded into a very small space. Without going into too much detail, this DNA is in turn composed of billions of nucleotides, which are linked pairs of the four chemical bases (A, G, C and T) supported by structural sugar and phosphate molecules.
- Shorter sections of these long strands of DNA, from a few hundred to a couple of million base pairs each, arranged in a specific order, make up individual genes, of which we have around 20,000 to 25,000. We have two sets of genes, one inherited from each parent, and it is our genes that provide the instructions for building the 10,000 or so different complex molecules called proteins that make up and regulate the structure and function of the body's tissues and organs. Over 99% of these genes are identical in everyone, and these are what make us human (rather than chimps or beluga whales). Less than 1% of our genes are different between individuals, the variations in genes being called alleles, which is what makes one individual different from another.
- Each individual cell, though, only "turns on" (or expresses) a fraction of the genes in its DNA, the rest remaining "turned off" (or repressed), and this gene regulation is what causes a particular cell to function as a brain cell or a muscle cell or a heart cell. Just to confuse things, the expression of genes can also be affected by environmental influences like diet, pollution, etc, by a process known as epigenetics, and genes can also mutate over time if they copy incorrectly, or if an mutated gene is inherited at birth, but let's not go there for now.
So what do I know about gene therapy? As the name suggests, it refers to techniques, still largely experimental, that use genes to treat or prevent disease. This may be by replacing a mutated gene that causes disease with a healthy copy of the gene, getting rid of or making inactive a mutated gene that is not functioning properly, or even introducing a completely new gene into the body in order to fight a particular disease. Apparently, inserting a new gene directly into a cell usually does not work, and so a carrier called a vector, such as a modified virus, can be used to deliver the gene (yes, just like on Helix!).
Right. But, doesn't this mean that the new gene would need to be inserted into every cell in the body (there doesn't seem much point in just one or two cells having an altered copy of a particular gene)? Is it even allowed for different cells to have a different set of genes (I always thought that every cell had exactly the same set of genes/DNA, just that some cells expressed some genes and some others)? Or is it, for example, sufficient for all the lung cells to host the altered genes in order to have a beneficial effect on a lung disease (not that that would be particularly easy in itself)?
In fact, all of this begs an even more fundamental question: how does a particular cell know which genes to turn on, and which not, in the first place? How does one hair follicle on a black and white cat know to switch on the white hair gene and the one next door to it to switch on the black hair gene? And, for that matter, could a cell in your elbow have a gene for blue eyes switched on, and, if it did, what difference would this make? The more I think about it, the more questions I could come up with.
Now, I know that not many people ever read this blog, and most of those are probably not well-versed in genomics. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained: maybe some kind soul will put me out of my misery.
UPDATE
My daughter actually came through for me on this one (she's doing a Biology major, and is currently interning in a genetics lab). Perhaps predictably, I got a lot more information than I either need or understand, but the quick summary is that, as I suspected, gene therapy is still pretty much pie in the sky, a cool idea whose time has not yet come.
Viruses can indeed be used to introduce new genes into cells, but the science is as yet very inexact. For example, a gene might end up integrating into a part of the DNA where it can't be expressed, or where it is inappropriately expressed all the time, or even into the middle of another gene, thus screwing up both genes. There are other methods of injecting DNA into cells, but they just introduce the new material into the cytoplasm of the cell, not the nucleus, and so it will gradually degrade over time. Yet another line of approach might be to introduce new genes into pluripotent stem cells, and then engineer these into the right kind of cell for the required purpose (all of which can indeed be done), but then the problem of delivery still remains.
And, yes, the new genes do have to be introduced to the right part of the body (whether that be bone marrow, muscles, lungs, etc) to have the desired effect, otherwise they will not be able to be properly expressed and will not be able to carry out the required function, and at present there seems to be no clever way of doing that. As for how to deliver new genes into the central nervous system or across the blood/brain barrier (for neurodegenerative diseases, for example), that is a whole new set of problems. And, even once introduced, it is still not clear whether the new altered cells will persist and proliferate, or just degrade and fade.
Finally, on my more general questions at the end:
The way in which different genes are expressed in different parts of the body is, well, complicated, involving tissue-specific transcriptional regulators, factors and enhancers, etc. I don't think I even want to go there. Because of these regulators, though, it is apparently very unlikely that a gene for blue eyes would find itself turned on in an elbow, to use my random example. And even if it did, and a blue pigment was created in an elbow cell (whether this be in bone, blood, cartilage or whatever), it would have no way of physically expressing itself, and so would just degrade and be removed.
The colour of cat hair is apparently a whole subject unto itself, and incredibly complicated and convoluted. Those interested would be better served by going to the detailed Wikipedia article on the subject, than having me try to explain it.
So, it seems that sometimes a little knowledge may actually be safer than getting totally tied up in a whole bunch of things I really don't understand, and don't have several years to devote to figuring out. Sad, but true.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Canada's refugee policy becomes an election wedge issue
After 10 days in Iceland, far from mainstream politics, and particularly from Canadian politics, I come back and find that the Conservatives' campaign for this October' federal election has been well and truly derailed, and mainly by the unlikely issue of its Syrian refugee policy.
There seems to have been a belated collective outpouring of concern for the plight of the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians, and a feeling that the Tories' grudging pledge to take 11,300 of them over three years is insufficient, hard-hearted and downright un-Canadian. There is a sudden hankering for the compassionate and outward-looking Canada of old, the Canada that took in 50,000 Vietnamese boat people in the late 1970s, and the Conservative government of Stephen Harper just does not fit that bill.
Interestingly, the reaction seems to have coalesced around one of those iconic media pictures, that of the body of three year-old Alan Kurdi, dead on a Turkish beach. In a German telephone interview, the boy's father, Abdullah, has put the blame squarely at Canada's door for rejecting the family's claim for asylum, although it actually appears that no such claim was ever made. Evidence is also coming to light that the boy's father may have been the driver of the capsized boat and working with the smugglers, and even that his actions may have been directly instrumental in the tragedy. As usual, the truth is never simple.
The problem has been compounded, or perhaps deliberately confused, by the Conservatives' wilful conflation of refugees and immigrants from other sources in their campaign speeches. When Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said recently, "We also are the most generous country to refugees in the world", he is guilty of this, as is Stephen Harper himself when he said, "Our country has the most generous immigration and refugee system in the world. We admit, per capita, more people than any other." However, terminology aside, this is also just plain wrong: the UNHCR ranks Canada not first, but tied for 41st place, in refugee intake per capita. Even in the case of total net immigration, Canada ranks a mediocre 24th.
But, whatever the impetus, and despite Harper's belated promises to expedite the asylum process and to expand Canada's commitment to 10,000 over the next three years (albeit largely through private organizations like church groups), the political damage has been done, and the Syrian refugee crisis has suddenly become the year's hot button issue.
Even little Iceland is not exempt from it. While we were there, reports surfaced of widespread disgust at the Icelandic government's pledge to take just 500 Syrian asylum-seekers, and a hurried Facebook campaign yielded over 11,000 families who are willing to open up their homes to Syrian refugees (some reports have put this figure at up to 15,000). Bear in mind that the total population of Iceland is about 330,000, about one-hundredth of Canada's population.
The problem is certainly a huge one, as a useful BBC summary of the refugee crisis shows. Some 350,000 refugees have physically entered Europe so far this year, and over 430,000 asylum applications have been received by European countries, by far the largest recipient being Germany, followed by Hungary, Turkey, and Sweden. Some 40,000 refugees are expected to arrive in Germany this weekend alone. The number of claims granted is, of course, much smaller, although Germany and Sweden are the largest asylum granters, with Sweden by far the largest recipient on a per capita basis. Germany is anticipating in the region of 800,000 claims over the entire course of 2015, and says that it may end up taking half a million of these.
The largest single country of origin for European asylum claims was Syria, although many hundreds of thousands are also fleeing their homelands from Afghanistan, Kosovo, Eritrea, Serbia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and Russia. Over 2,300 have died making the treacherous crossing into Europe, mainly by sea though Greece, Italy and Spain. Of course, the situation closer to Syria is immeasurably more dire. Turkey has received a total of nearly 2 million asylum applications up to June this year, Lebanon over 1 million, and Jordan well over 600,000.
With all this as background, Canada's acceptance of 1,300 refugees over three years does indeed sound paltry (as does the USA's recent resettlement pledge of 10,000 over the next year). Given all the various sins that can be laid at Stephen Harper's door, it would be ironic if this was the issue that sank the Conservatives' ship in the upcoming election.
There seems to have been a belated collective outpouring of concern for the plight of the hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians, and a feeling that the Tories' grudging pledge to take 11,300 of them over three years is insufficient, hard-hearted and downright un-Canadian. There is a sudden hankering for the compassionate and outward-looking Canada of old, the Canada that took in 50,000 Vietnamese boat people in the late 1970s, and the Conservative government of Stephen Harper just does not fit that bill.
Interestingly, the reaction seems to have coalesced around one of those iconic media pictures, that of the body of three year-old Alan Kurdi, dead on a Turkish beach. In a German telephone interview, the boy's father, Abdullah, has put the blame squarely at Canada's door for rejecting the family's claim for asylum, although it actually appears that no such claim was ever made. Evidence is also coming to light that the boy's father may have been the driver of the capsized boat and working with the smugglers, and even that his actions may have been directly instrumental in the tragedy. As usual, the truth is never simple.
The problem has been compounded, or perhaps deliberately confused, by the Conservatives' wilful conflation of refugees and immigrants from other sources in their campaign speeches. When Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said recently, "We also are the most generous country to refugees in the world", he is guilty of this, as is Stephen Harper himself when he said, "Our country has the most generous immigration and refugee system in the world. We admit, per capita, more people than any other." However, terminology aside, this is also just plain wrong: the UNHCR ranks Canada not first, but tied for 41st place, in refugee intake per capita. Even in the case of total net immigration, Canada ranks a mediocre 24th.
But, whatever the impetus, and despite Harper's belated promises to expedite the asylum process and to expand Canada's commitment to 10,000 over the next three years (albeit largely through private organizations like church groups), the political damage has been done, and the Syrian refugee crisis has suddenly become the year's hot button issue.
Even little Iceland is not exempt from it. While we were there, reports surfaced of widespread disgust at the Icelandic government's pledge to take just 500 Syrian asylum-seekers, and a hurried Facebook campaign yielded over 11,000 families who are willing to open up their homes to Syrian refugees (some reports have put this figure at up to 15,000). Bear in mind that the total population of Iceland is about 330,000, about one-hundredth of Canada's population.
The problem is certainly a huge one, as a useful BBC summary of the refugee crisis shows. Some 350,000 refugees have physically entered Europe so far this year, and over 430,000 asylum applications have been received by European countries, by far the largest recipient being Germany, followed by Hungary, Turkey, and Sweden. Some 40,000 refugees are expected to arrive in Germany this weekend alone. The number of claims granted is, of course, much smaller, although Germany and Sweden are the largest asylum granters, with Sweden by far the largest recipient on a per capita basis. Germany is anticipating in the region of 800,000 claims over the entire course of 2015, and says that it may end up taking half a million of these.
The largest single country of origin for European asylum claims was Syria, although many hundreds of thousands are also fleeing their homelands from Afghanistan, Kosovo, Eritrea, Serbia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and Russia. Over 2,300 have died making the treacherous crossing into Europe, mainly by sea though Greece, Italy and Spain. Of course, the situation closer to Syria is immeasurably more dire. Turkey has received a total of nearly 2 million asylum applications up to June this year, Lebanon over 1 million, and Jordan well over 600,000.
With all this as background, Canada's acceptance of 1,300 refugees over three years does indeed sound paltry (as does the USA's recent resettlement pledge of 10,000 over the next year). Given all the various sins that can be laid at Stephen Harper's door, it would be ironic if this was the issue that sank the Conservatives' ship in the upcoming election.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Canada to phase out fossil fuel subsidies?
I seem to be fixating on the upcoming Canadian election at the moment. I don't mean to do so, although it is a particularly important one in terms of the way the country goes forward. What I am trying to do is to look at election issues as a segue into a discussion of some other important issues of the day.
I have been generally underwhelmed by the NDP's campaign thus far. They seem to have strayed far from their left-wing traditions, towards the crowded political centre, and in the process they have bought into Conservative-style popularism (and sometimes even into Conservative-style policies). But they have at least been willing to bring up the issue of government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (as has the Liberal party, and of course the Greens).
The NDP has vowed unequivocally to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and to put the money saved into clean energy. The Liberals have also pledged to phase them out, over an undisclosed period. Of course, the Green Party would end them immediately and do much more besides. Technically, even the Conservatives are committed to phasing our fossil fuel subsidies, after they grudgingly signed on to a G20 pledge back in 2009, but don't hold your breath on that.
I'm sure that most Canadians are not even aware that such subsidies exist. They assume that the high price of gas at the pump, and of electricity at the meter, is in fact the full price. Not so. A 2013 report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identifies over $34 billion each year that is spent (or foregone) by the Canadian government in direct support to fossil fuel producers and in uncollected tax on externalized costs such as traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion. Worldwide, this figure is around $2 trillion! Indeed, Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and (oddly) Luxembourg.
Most of this subsidy is in the form of uncollected taxes on the externalized costs of burning transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel, as well as direct producer support to oil companies through a variety of provincial and federal incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction. Smaller, but still very significant, amounts come in un-priced carbon emissions from burning natural gas, and un-priced carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions from the coal industry. In total, this $34 billion represents something like 4% of Canadian government revenues though taxation, or around $1,000 per Canadian citizen per year.
The opportunity cost of this huge amount of money is stark, when one considers Canada's desperate need for investment in public transportation and other infrastructure projects, and our failing support for green energy development in, for example, solar and wind generation capacity (which has been shown to provide more than seven times the employment from an equivalent investment in oil and gas extraction).
Canada currently enjoys some of the cheapest gas in the developed world, and the IMF itself estimates that we are undervaluing the true cost of gasoline by about $0.30 per litre. While gas prices remain artificially low, people will choose to buy cars rather than take public transit, with concomitant repercussions on our road infrastructure, transportation accidents and greenhouse gas emissions. If we had to pay the real price of the energy we consume, our consumption patterns would be quite different (this is the theory behind carbon taxes). It would also change perceptions of the comparative costs of renewable technologies, and the costs of investment in energy conservation measures.
None of the parties have expanded in any clear way exactly what they are proposing for fossil fuel subsidies as far as I am aware, and any plans to end fossil fuel subsidies remains suspiciously vague and unfocussed. Thomas Mulcair has publicly mentioned a figure of $1 billion a year, which is close to the annual figure for direct incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction, so I am pretty sure they are not thinking of factoring in externalized costs like traffic accidents, air pollution and road congestion, and probably not even carbon emissions. But the fact that they are even talking about the billions of dollars of subsidies that have been sunk into oil, gas and coal over the years is worthy of some credit.
If we could also get back the billions of dollars of subsidies to the nuclear industry that are hidden in our electricity costs, that would be an added bonus! State-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has received well over $21 billion in direct government subsidies since its inception in 1952. No-one knows the extent of the environmental and health costs, and the associated costs of accidents, cleanups, waste disposal, subsidized insurance, plant decommissioning, etc.
Imagine if these billions had been put into renewable energy research and development over the last several decades: we would probably not be having this discussion right now.
I have been generally underwhelmed by the NDP's campaign thus far. They seem to have strayed far from their left-wing traditions, towards the crowded political centre, and in the process they have bought into Conservative-style popularism (and sometimes even into Conservative-style policies). But they have at least been willing to bring up the issue of government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (as has the Liberal party, and of course the Greens).
The NDP has vowed unequivocally to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and to put the money saved into clean energy. The Liberals have also pledged to phase them out, over an undisclosed period. Of course, the Green Party would end them immediately and do much more besides. Technically, even the Conservatives are committed to phasing our fossil fuel subsidies, after they grudgingly signed on to a G20 pledge back in 2009, but don't hold your breath on that.
I'm sure that most Canadians are not even aware that such subsidies exist. They assume that the high price of gas at the pump, and of electricity at the meter, is in fact the full price. Not so. A 2013 report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identifies over $34 billion each year that is spent (or foregone) by the Canadian government in direct support to fossil fuel producers and in uncollected tax on externalized costs such as traffic accidents, carbon emissions, air pollution and road congestion. Worldwide, this figure is around $2 trillion! Indeed, Canada provides more subsidies to petroleum as a proportion of government revenue than any developed nation on Earth besides the United States and (oddly) Luxembourg.
Most of this subsidy is in the form of uncollected taxes on the externalized costs of burning transportation fuels like gasoline and diesel, as well as direct producer support to oil companies through a variety of provincial and federal incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction. Smaller, but still very significant, amounts come in un-priced carbon emissions from burning natural gas, and un-priced carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions from the coal industry. In total, this $34 billion represents something like 4% of Canadian government revenues though taxation, or around $1,000 per Canadian citizen per year.
The opportunity cost of this huge amount of money is stark, when one considers Canada's desperate need for investment in public transportation and other infrastructure projects, and our failing support for green energy development in, for example, solar and wind generation capacity (which has been shown to provide more than seven times the employment from an equivalent investment in oil and gas extraction).
Canada currently enjoys some of the cheapest gas in the developed world, and the IMF itself estimates that we are undervaluing the true cost of gasoline by about $0.30 per litre. While gas prices remain artificially low, people will choose to buy cars rather than take public transit, with concomitant repercussions on our road infrastructure, transportation accidents and greenhouse gas emissions. If we had to pay the real price of the energy we consume, our consumption patterns would be quite different (this is the theory behind carbon taxes). It would also change perceptions of the comparative costs of renewable technologies, and the costs of investment in energy conservation measures.
None of the parties have expanded in any clear way exactly what they are proposing for fossil fuel subsidies as far as I am aware, and any plans to end fossil fuel subsidies remains suspiciously vague and unfocussed. Thomas Mulcair has publicly mentioned a figure of $1 billion a year, which is close to the annual figure for direct incentives to encourage fossil fuel extraction, so I am pretty sure they are not thinking of factoring in externalized costs like traffic accidents, air pollution and road congestion, and probably not even carbon emissions. But the fact that they are even talking about the billions of dollars of subsidies that have been sunk into oil, gas and coal over the years is worthy of some credit.
If we could also get back the billions of dollars of subsidies to the nuclear industry that are hidden in our electricity costs, that would be an added bonus! State-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has received well over $21 billion in direct government subsidies since its inception in 1952. No-one knows the extent of the environmental and health costs, and the associated costs of accidents, cleanups, waste disposal, subsidized insurance, plant decommissioning, etc.
Imagine if these billions had been put into renewable energy research and development over the last several decades: we would probably not be having this discussion right now.
Friday, August 28, 2015
More perspective on Stephen Harper's economic performance - without the spin
This week's Report On Business, the business magazine of the Globe and Mail, contains an important extended article called "The Great Economist" by respected Globe columnist Lawrence Martin, who has also published books on Stephen Harper, Jean Chrétien, Lucien Bouchard, etc.
The article is a scathing and damning summary of Harper's actual (as opposed to claimed) economic record, and of his repressive and controlling management style. It should be required reading, particularly for the very businessmen the magazine is aimed at, most of whom are probably sold on the myth of Tory economic superiority, and who are probably planning on voting Conservative again.
The article relies heavily on testimony from the non-partisan civil servants and journalists (and even ex-Conservative Ministers) who have had to work with the Harper government, and particularly with the tightly-controlled and media-obsessed politburo that is the modern PMO (Prime Minister's Office). It does not contain any great new revelations, but it does a good job of bringing together evidence from Harper's ten years in power and putting it all in context, without the intervention of positive spin from the Tory message-massaging machine. And what it reveals is not pretty.
Just a few snippets to whet your appetites:
"Statistics could be found to prove or disprove most any theory one wanted. It was all about who had the biggest megaphones."
"All of their economic policies became instrumentalized towards getting them re-elected."
"Governing was turned into an around-the-clock marketing enterprise."
"The Tories made great political mileage with the measure they were forced into...But they had inherited a sound banking and regulatory system as well as a $13-billion surplus and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio since the 1970s."
"Flaherty's budget bills were turned into sweeping omnibus bills containing hundreds of clauses and measures...scrutiny at the committee level was further short-circuited by the Tories' use, in degrees rarely seen, of closure, time limitations, in-camera sessions and heavy-handed tactics to block witnesses."
"It wasn't just the left that questioned the wisdom of some of the cuts. The GST reduction was roundly denounced by mainstream economists."
But, better still, read the full article.
The article is a scathing and damning summary of Harper's actual (as opposed to claimed) economic record, and of his repressive and controlling management style. It should be required reading, particularly for the very businessmen the magazine is aimed at, most of whom are probably sold on the myth of Tory economic superiority, and who are probably planning on voting Conservative again.
The article relies heavily on testimony from the non-partisan civil servants and journalists (and even ex-Conservative Ministers) who have had to work with the Harper government, and particularly with the tightly-controlled and media-obsessed politburo that is the modern PMO (Prime Minister's Office). It does not contain any great new revelations, but it does a good job of bringing together evidence from Harper's ten years in power and putting it all in context, without the intervention of positive spin from the Tory message-massaging machine. And what it reveals is not pretty.
Just a few snippets to whet your appetites:
"Statistics could be found to prove or disprove most any theory one wanted. It was all about who had the biggest megaphones."
"All of their economic policies became instrumentalized towards getting them re-elected."
"Governing was turned into an around-the-clock marketing enterprise."
"The Tories made great political mileage with the measure they were forced into...But they had inherited a sound banking and regulatory system as well as a $13-billion surplus and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio since the 1970s."
"Flaherty's budget bills were turned into sweeping omnibus bills containing hundreds of clauses and measures...scrutiny at the committee level was further short-circuited by the Tories' use, in degrees rarely seen, of closure, time limitations, in-camera sessions and heavy-handed tactics to block witnesses."
"It wasn't just the left that questioned the wisdom of some of the cuts. The GST reduction was roundly denounced by mainstream economists."
But, better still, read the full article.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
A tool for strategic voting in the Canadian elections
The Canadian federal election is 53 days away as I type, a seemingly interminable period of attack ads, eye-scratching and back-stabbing, during which a lot could happen and all manner of swings and sea changes could occur.
As things stand, the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are locked in a neck-and-neck-and-neck race. A sizeable majority therefore want to see the back of Stephen Harper and his divisive and destructive policies. But, just as occurred in the last couple of elections, the split of the ABC (Anything But Conservative) vote could quite easily result in a Conservative victory in our first-past-the-post electoral system.
The picture is further complicated by the recent trend towards the political centre, as all the parties fall over themselves not to appear too radical or to risk alienating or excluding anyone at all, and to be all things to all people. Both the Liberals and the NDP have adopted what they see as some of the more successful ploys from the Conservatives' political arsenal, with the Liberals touting a Harperesque micro-targeted tax break (for teachers who pay for their own school supplies -it doesn't get much more targeted than that!), and the NDP uncharacteristically promising a balanced budget come what may. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the parties, and on some issues, like stimulus spending and balanced budgets, the Liberals are clearly to the left of the traditionally left-wing New Democrats. Of course, what the parties promise may not always sync with what they will (and even what they intend to) achieve once in power.
A Liberal-NDP merger seems to be out of the question, even if Thomas Mulcair did seem open to the idea at one point. However, nil desperandum, all is not lost. There is still the power of strategic voting! It's not something I relish having to promote, but sometimes needs must. And, finally, we have a tool to help us with that.
VoteTogether.ca is a website that analyses all the Canadian federal ridings, based on prior election results and the best anecdotal knowledge of the current situation, and identifies those ridings where strategic voting is likely to be beneficial in keeping the Tories from exploiting a split non-Tory vote.
In their analysis, there are some 72 Conservative swing ridings across the country where a concerted strategic voting effort could relatively easily exclude a Tory MP, including a large number in and around Toronto and the GTA region, and another large clutch in British Columbia. The other 266 seats are in their opinion pretty much cut and dried in one direction or another, and effort there is unlikely to yield concrete changes.
Ideally, the leaders of the Liberal and NDP parties would also recognize this situation and limit their local campaigns in ridings where they are unlikely to win but may spoil the chances of the other non-Tory party. In some cases, in the last election, a swing of just a few percentage points would have made the difference, and just seven seats would have made the difference between a Tory majority and a minority government. So much pain could have been spared by just a small exercise in cooperation.
Yes, there are differences between the Liberals and the NDP, and between their leaders and their policies. But these differences are not as great as between the Conservatives and the rest, and I believe that this is the time to put minor differences behind us and focus on the major differences. Vote together, and get Canada off its current self-destructive track!
UPDATE
There is also another online resource for strategic voting at StrategicVoting.ca. This one identified 63 ridings where strategic voting could potentially avoid a Conservative win, and indicates the most likely of the "progressive" candidates to win in each, as well as 67 more where the projected combined progressive vote is greater than that of the Conservatives (so that a concerted strategic voting effort could make a difference).
As things stand, the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are locked in a neck-and-neck-and-neck race. A sizeable majority therefore want to see the back of Stephen Harper and his divisive and destructive policies. But, just as occurred in the last couple of elections, the split of the ABC (Anything But Conservative) vote could quite easily result in a Conservative victory in our first-past-the-post electoral system.
The picture is further complicated by the recent trend towards the political centre, as all the parties fall over themselves not to appear too radical or to risk alienating or excluding anyone at all, and to be all things to all people. Both the Liberals and the NDP have adopted what they see as some of the more successful ploys from the Conservatives' political arsenal, with the Liberals touting a Harperesque micro-targeted tax break (for teachers who pay for their own school supplies -it doesn't get much more targeted than that!), and the NDP uncharacteristically promising a balanced budget come what may. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between the parties, and on some issues, like stimulus spending and balanced budgets, the Liberals are clearly to the left of the traditionally left-wing New Democrats. Of course, what the parties promise may not always sync with what they will (and even what they intend to) achieve once in power.
A Liberal-NDP merger seems to be out of the question, even if Thomas Mulcair did seem open to the idea at one point. However, nil desperandum, all is not lost. There is still the power of strategic voting! It's not something I relish having to promote, but sometimes needs must. And, finally, we have a tool to help us with that.
VoteTogether.ca is a website that analyses all the Canadian federal ridings, based on prior election results and the best anecdotal knowledge of the current situation, and identifies those ridings where strategic voting is likely to be beneficial in keeping the Tories from exploiting a split non-Tory vote.
In their analysis, there are some 72 Conservative swing ridings across the country where a concerted strategic voting effort could relatively easily exclude a Tory MP, including a large number in and around Toronto and the GTA region, and another large clutch in British Columbia. The other 266 seats are in their opinion pretty much cut and dried in one direction or another, and effort there is unlikely to yield concrete changes.
Ideally, the leaders of the Liberal and NDP parties would also recognize this situation and limit their local campaigns in ridings where they are unlikely to win but may spoil the chances of the other non-Tory party. In some cases, in the last election, a swing of just a few percentage points would have made the difference, and just seven seats would have made the difference between a Tory majority and a minority government. So much pain could have been spared by just a small exercise in cooperation.
Yes, there are differences between the Liberals and the NDP, and between their leaders and their policies. But these differences are not as great as between the Conservatives and the rest, and I believe that this is the time to put minor differences behind us and focus on the major differences. Vote together, and get Canada off its current self-destructive track!
UPDATE
There is also another online resource for strategic voting at StrategicVoting.ca. This one identified 63 ridings where strategic voting could potentially avoid a Conservative win, and indicates the most likely of the "progressive" candidates to win in each, as well as 67 more where the projected combined progressive vote is greater than that of the Conservatives (so that a concerted strategic voting effort could make a difference).
Monday, August 24, 2015
So why aren't lower oil prices being reflected in lower gas prices?
I have finally found a good explanation for why gas prices have not been reflecting the bargain basement price of crude oil in recent months. It is, just as I suspected, mainly due to oil companies fleecing us. More specifically it is the oil refiners who are doing the fleecing, although increasingly, in this age of vertical integration, these are the same people as the oil producers.
With the price of the benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil now languishing below $40 for the first time since the depths of 2008, the price of gas and the pump in Ontario remains around $1.07 per litre, as compared to the sub-90c prices of 2008 and 2009 (as low as 70c at one point). With the world apparently awash in record stocks of crude oil, which is the price of gas still so high?
One reason of course is the tanking Canadian dollar, which at US 76c is at its lowest level in over a decade. In an international oil market priced in US dollars, that has hit Canadian prices hard.
But even in US terms, the decline in oil prices in the last year has been around 57%, while gas prices have only gone down 23%, with the discrepancy particularly marked in the last couple of months.
American refineries are operating at or above average utilization levels, which means that, as well as a glut in stored crude oil, we also have a glut in refined petroleum stocks. But this has not resulted in lower prices, which suggests that the refiners are milking the situation and skimming extra profits from the consumer. And indeed it turns out that the so-called "crack spread" (the difference between what the refiners pay for their crude oil raw materials and what they sell it for, effectively the refining profit margin) has been hitting multi-year highs in recent months. This, then, seems to be an unabashed move by the oil companies to claw back at the refinery stage the money they are losing at the extraction stage.
Now, I'm not one to advocate super-low gas prices. I actually think that, for environmental reasons, the cost of high street gas should be kept high enough to discourage casual use. But I would like to see this done through a carbon tax, where the additional income is redistributed through progressive income tax breaks. I don't want the money going to rapacious oil empires, thank you very much.
With the price of the benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil now languishing below $40 for the first time since the depths of 2008, the price of gas and the pump in Ontario remains around $1.07 per litre, as compared to the sub-90c prices of 2008 and 2009 (as low as 70c at one point). With the world apparently awash in record stocks of crude oil, which is the price of gas still so high?
One reason of course is the tanking Canadian dollar, which at US 76c is at its lowest level in over a decade. In an international oil market priced in US dollars, that has hit Canadian prices hard.
But even in US terms, the decline in oil prices in the last year has been around 57%, while gas prices have only gone down 23%, with the discrepancy particularly marked in the last couple of months.
American refineries are operating at or above average utilization levels, which means that, as well as a glut in stored crude oil, we also have a glut in refined petroleum stocks. But this has not resulted in lower prices, which suggests that the refiners are milking the situation and skimming extra profits from the consumer. And indeed it turns out that the so-called "crack spread" (the difference between what the refiners pay for their crude oil raw materials and what they sell it for, effectively the refining profit margin) has been hitting multi-year highs in recent months. This, then, seems to be an unabashed move by the oil companies to claw back at the refinery stage the money they are losing at the extraction stage.
Now, I'm not one to advocate super-low gas prices. I actually think that, for environmental reasons, the cost of high street gas should be kept high enough to discourage casual use. But I would like to see this done through a carbon tax, where the additional income is redistributed through progressive income tax breaks. I don't want the money going to rapacious oil empires, thank you very much.