Phendrana Drifts

I just got back from breakfast with Premier Ed Stelmach, and boy am I pumped. Premier Stelmach spoke about many things, including dealing with growth, innovation and making all-party and public legislative committees, but he also spent a good deal of time talking about a subject that is increasingly meaning a lot to me, the environment.

And he hit upon something that leads me to the conclusion that Alberta and Canada's right-of-centre parties are the ones for the task of improving our environment. Taking action on climate change and other core environmental issues is going to take two things, individual choice and personal responsibility. Making a real difference is going to take more than the state shutting down the economy and using the heavy hand of legislation to force behaviour change. Why? Because it is not industry alone, or even industry principally who is wreaking havoc, it is you and me. And what is needed to make us change our behaviour is leadership rather the application of brute power.

Embracing the conservation and proper stewardship of our environment is a natural fit for any small-c conservative party. When I think of environmental leaders I think of Brian Mulroney here in Canada or Theodore Roosevelt and (*gasp*) Richard Nixon in the United States. Getting there for them did not require any drastic departure from their conservative roots, but embracing the values that led them to office that were at their core conservative values - protecting the environment as a place where families shared their experiences and where children could be children and where food could be grown and cultivated.

Back to my breakfast with Premier Stelmach, who expressed similar notions of the importance of the environment, but emphasized there would be no easy solution.

The reality is that the government will not do this for us. They can't. Look at the Government of Alberta - who uses green power where ever possible and have made their operations as environmentally-friendly as possible. And while industry and the energy sector will certainly have an important role to play, I know the heaviest lifting will be done by individuals. Some of us will stop driving to work everyday (or never start, like me). Some of us will supplement our power usage with solar power. Some of us will become vegetarian because it is has such a lower impact on the land (but not me, as I really love meat - but I'm far more vegetarian now than ever before). Pitching former-Vice President Al Gore's site, climatecrisis.org, you can find dozens of ideas on just reducing your carbon emissions.

The point is not everyone is going to be forced to do all of those things, because that isn't going to work - but we all have to do something. We will all have to change how we live in some way. And we are going to need leadership from our leaders, not heavy handed legislation for just one industry (or all industry, exempting individuals). Who best to do this? Well, obviously I think Ed Stelmach is the choice, and I hope Stephen Harper does the same with his plan on climate change to the House of Commons.

Labels: alberta politics, environment, federal politics

I was reading with interest the great column by Doug Saunders in today's Globe and Mail, A World of Maher Arars, which looked at the unfolding political situation in Italy where right-of-centre, normally pro-American and anti-terrorist politicians are working to bring down Romano Prodi's left government over pro-American policies like involvement in Afghanistan and allowing American bases on Italian soil to continue and expand. I won't steal the column's thunder and reiterate points that Saunders makes much better than I could, but it did remind me of another headline I saw this week (the Edmonton Sun... shudder) which had Prime Minister Harper's quote that Arctic sovereignty should be one of the lasting legacies of his government - link to the story. Promoting our sovereignty over the Arctic is perhaps the policy move that would most piss off the United States who rely upon being allowed to slink under our Arctic waters in submarines for their nuclear strategy.

Now, I've always been one who has said that Harper's conservativism has far more in common with the right of centre movement in Australia and New Zealand than anything in the United States, but it is becoming increasingly vogue for right of centre politicians in Canada and Europe to at the very least distance themselves from the United States and George W. Bush. I am certain that electoral gains has a lot to do with it, in Canada it is simply good politics to tastefully bash the USA. But I think there is ultimately more to it.

Another interesting fault line to watch is the conservatives in the United Kingdom (where I would very comfortably vote Conservative). Environmentalist, pro-American but certainly not blindly so, and looking to good conservative policies (as well as an increased look at improving the quality of life, something which should not be owned solely by the left of any political landscape). David Cameron's view of the United States may go even further than "We must be steadfast not slavish in how we approach the special relationship... Questioning the approach of the US administration, trying to learn the lessons of the past five years, does not make you anti-American."

As the American primaries heat up, and the expressions of post-Bush Republican policy start coming out, I would not be shocked to see even more rejections and even attacks by other conservatives outside of the US on what might come out by McCain, Giuliani and others.

Labels: federal politics

The console sales figures for December and January were released today, and it appears I was right - the Playstation 3 is losing, at least in the United States. In both months, the PS3 came dead last in the fight between the three consoles, selling only 734,000 units in the time span, compared to over a million Wiis and 1.4 million Xbox 360s. And as I said earlier, it doesn't appear that it is supply that is killing the PS3, as there are many available for purchase. Wiis... well I'm still Wii-less.

Labels: wii

Telus World of Science: check.
Watch Hurricane on the Bayou: check.
Find out stuff about science: check.
Have a bunch of ribs after science centre: check.
Have four drinks of rum while eating ribs: check.
Watch the Flames beat down the Avalanche while eating the ribs and drinking the rum: check.
Get a new stuffed alligator: check.

My day is good.

Labels: family, inane

*sniff* Here is the article from IGN - but of course, it is St. Valentine's Day, so I am in a happy mood to take this sad news. Allie will certainly pick me up from my momentary malaise.

Labels: inane, movies

Another 80 people are dead and 160 are wounded in Iraq this morning from bombers attacking Baghdad markets. But perhaps more disturbing is that many news outlets are not reporting it. No, that is going too far, but I mean they have decided that the audience (that would be us) are no longer shocked by it, in short it isn't news. An interesting solution to a policy problem - in the English speaking world who is largely responsible for creating the environment in Iraq we no longer want bombings in Baghdad markets so rather than shift policy, we are no longer hearing about it. I wonder if it is because we have grown too lazy to do something about it or to demand change.

Of course I say this from comfort in Canada, a country that (thankfully) passed on the American adventure in Iraq. I wish I knew what to do about Iraq. I guess more importantly, I wish either George W. Bush or someone else within the American leadership really knew what to do in Iraq.

Labels: iraq

Does anyone know when the Wii shortage is supposed to end? I must confess, I'm not obsessing over finding one (anymore), but I do still really, really want one. Every once and awhile (about once a week) I go off on a Wii hunting expedition, but fail sadly.

On another note, Sony Playstation 3's are everywhere. Now, I must admit there is a decent chance that Sony has caught up and surpassed Nintendo in production, meaning there might be more PS3's in the world than Wii's. But if not, if in fact there are about as many Wii's off the production line as there are PS3's (both have a long way to catch up to Xbox 360's), then Sony is in a heap of trouble. Atari levels of trouble. It is well-known that the PSP is not a winner (sales-wise, the actual item is still quite a gem in my collection), and coupled with the fact that the PS3 is being sold at quite a loss (meaning the production costs plus the R&D to make PS3's per unit is well beyond the ridiculous price of a PS3) and that I think Sony picked the losing side of the coming Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD war might equal bankruptcy or something of equal distaste to Sony management and shareholders.

I know the reported Wii numbers in both Japan and North America are very strong, and although Sony claims they are doing well, I don't think they have momentum on their side at all.

All the same, in the next-generation video game conflict, I remain a bystander. Provided Wes maintains his stellar performance in school, that will change on his next report card as an Xbox 360 will be his reward for awesome grades (which is bankable given the amazing smarts on Wes) - so our household will enter the next-generation regardless in March, but I'm still hoping the Wii will be well-ensconced by that point.

Labels: video games, wii

This story is frightening. Orange snow that smells bad - "Residents are advised not to use snow for their household or technical needs and to limit walking, either by people or their pets, in this area," - yeah, no shit.

Labels: environment

I have never called myself an environmentalist, but I also think I thought green before some (all Liberal and Conservative politicians) but long after some (Al Gore - given that he started before I was born). Still, I'm not perfect. We recycle, we don't own a car (although we keep thinking that will change soon), we use the awesome lightbulbs that use only a little energy, etc. I also double-side print at work, recycle and try and be green in the office as well as home.

I also believe that global warming represents a threat to our planet. But I was not a fan of the Kyoto Protocol and still am not. But for much different reasons than most.

Kyoto was designed with the United States as a signatory in mind, and without them on board, Kyoto is at risk of not actually doing what it was meant to do. Without the United States obligated to cut greenhouse emissions, and with nations like China and India left to do virtually what ever they want with their emissions, Kyoto is unlikely to stop, or even substantially curtail the greenhouse effect.

As the debate in Canada restarts on greenhouse gases I hope the conversation to some degree goes towards using diplomacy to convince the United States to sign on and convince heavily polluting developing nations to cut their emissions as well. Certainly we should set ambitious goals for ourselves, and the Kyoto ones can certainly be admirable ones, but Canada is only a part of the problem. In fact, we are only 2% of the problem, meaning that cutting our emissions by say, 20%, will only solve 0.1% of the problem globally. Convincing the United States to cut emissions by 20% however will reduce global emissions by about 6%.

Regardless of who sits in the Prime Minister's chair, I was always convinced that Canada's real commitment to Kyoto died when President Bush decided to thumb his nose at the protocol. Let's go change his mind, or at least encourage the United States to take action on greenhouse gases. Then again, if I had the opportunity to influence American policy, greenhouse gas emissions would only be one of many, many topics I'd want to discuss.

Labels: environment

Twitter Updates