Environmentalism Reconsidered

Environmentalism Reconsidered 

This is the first in a series of blog pieces that offer a new way of contemplating environmentalism so please allow me to premise all of the following comments by acknowledging the necessity for humans to integrate their actions with natural systems. There have been damaging effects requiring address from the industrialization of the world. To think human actions, as humans now exist, can occur without effecting change on the plant would be lunacy. As human understanding continues to grow at a startling pace, greater opportunities are presenting themselves that will permit us to enjoy abundant lives in harmony with natural systems.  

Having been born on a farm in British Columbia and then through the course of my working life being exposed to the natural world, the state of the environment is a point of concern and contemplation. The environment, particularly as it concerns humanity’s healthy existence needs to take priority in the minds of the entire world’s population. A bold and “truthful” assessment of the environmental situation needs to occur. Focused debate on the next steps toward human harmony with nature still needs to take place. While there is consensus that the environment is challenged; the rhetoric we are hearing from the extreme elements of the environmental movement is questionable at best. It’s apparent at times there is a religiosity associated with some in the environmental movement, accompanied by the indoctrination of recruits rather than their edification. This is evidenced by the hostility encountered at the mere inquiry as to the credibility of claims forwarded by some.   

Nature to me is the smell of pine drifting across my path on an August day in the high country. The smell of fresh-cut wood is pungent in contrast to ambient fragrance. Nature is alpine flowers in July, ephemeral beauty. Nature is the excitement, as a flicker of a whitetail passes from view. Nature is hours spent astride a horse and watching the county pass by. Nature is the bite of a cold winter wind, the shiver from early spring rain. Nature is bold beautiful and powerful, comforting and intimidating. I’ve spent my finest moments in life at the whim of nature, a crisp October morning giving way to an afternoon’s nap against a south-facing rock. I’ve quacked at the rustle of a bear in the bush. I wondered to find my way when a flat piece of the county on a cloudy day stole my sense of direction. I have spent time with nature and felt bound to it and grown to love it, making an emotional bond. I feel I understand it and appreciate it as well as anybody. Given this intimacy I’ve developed with nature, when I hear someone speak of protecting “nature” my ears prick up. When, however, I hear someone prostituting nature to promote bygone political objectives, I become deeply offended. 

Far too often I’ve turned my head toward individuals expounding with save the earth rhetoric from the heart of urbansville, only to hear every word they say underpinned by an ulterior motive. When they say “cap and trade”, they really mean enforce monetary equality. When they say “100 Mile Diet” they really mean down with world trade. When they say “community-managed forest” they really mean stop logging. When they say save the earth, they really mean stop everything, freeze it all, stop society dead in its economic tracks. The constant salvo of urbanized thinkers trampling on the progress of humanity in the absence of an aft-ward glance is offensive and most certainly frightening. As Winston Churchill said, “the further back you look the further ahead you see”, and when I look back to when nature had its full sway, humanity was a small ship on a rough ocean. The modern world has brought both promise and pearl to be sure. The reality is we are the earth’s stewards now, and we are expanding, and we need to harvest nature’s generous bounty. Nature exists in a changing landscape; a new road can be viewed as a scare or as a mode of transport. There is a critical balance to be had to be sure, one needs to be cognisant of the result of our actions, but action is necessary; more than necessary it is exciting and filled with opportunity. This opportunity needs to be pursued with a clear mind, however, informed by clear information. The environmental message has lost resolution and fidelity, as it has been appropriated by social interest.          

The modern western population is now predominantly urban people who possess an idealistic view of nature. In grade school, they were told about the “balance” of nature, how, as a rodent population exceeds its food supply and they die off from starvation, and other examples of predator populations declining in response to predator overhunting of prey. Nature is a mass of happenstance and these are examples demonstrative of inherent imbalance as opposed to balance, anthropogenic interventions in the form of mindful stewardship can mitigate these fluctuations by integrating natural processes in human action. Anthropogenic intervention can enhance natural processes through the course of human endeavour. The view of human activity on the ground needs to be transformed in the minds of people, from the shroud of detriment to the realization human endeavour is integral to natural systems. A road built blind to the requirements of nature is a scare on the land; a road built mindful of nature serves to enhance human endeavour and maintains or enhances natural processes. We can harmonize our actions with nature; that should be the focus, rather than having social engineering take us off course.  

The Dali Lama teaches us to “avoid putting a goat's head on a yak's body”. This is precisely what many social activists are doing to the environmental movement – perhaps the social activists are best regarded as wolves in sheep’s clothing. The wolves are the authors of the environmental manifesto and the builders of the road to subsistence.  

It is my desire to move the environmental movement's thinking away from obstruction to participation, from scarcity to abundance, from analysis identifying problems to their massive brain trust in finding solutions. The only way to change humanity's dependence on fossil fuels is to find a solution, free unlimited energy will render fossil fuels obsolete and provision for abundance.

The problem with Carbon Tax

$30 / tonne may translate to more or less than 2% at the point of consumption - the concept holds true.

The problem with Carbon Taxes is that they are implemented with a critical misperception – that, as in British Columbia’s case, a 2% Carbon Tax will deter fossil fuel use. When attempting to deter use of fossil fuel by increasing price, a large percentage - like 20% - will deter use, but only to a point because very soon demand for fossil fuel hardens or becomes “inelastic”; there is really a very small amount of discretionary fossil fuel consumption in society as a whole. We know this is true because there is a hundred years of price sensitivity data that shows it to be true. British Petroleum did extensive price sensitive analysis in England, drawing on data from the energy crisis era. In a country, that at the time had food costs at nearly 40% of disposable income, gas prices doubled and demand only for gas degraded slightly, but in the main held steady. Carbon Tax is a very weak deterrent to consumption and to be used as a deterrent to consumption would require economy slaying prices to work.

If Carbon Tax is being implemented as a means to manage the negative externalities that flow from fossil fuel use, the Carbon Tax is a means to garner funds, in the same way that we tax liquor to manage negative externalities flowing to society from its use. If the Carbon Tax is a means to finance transition from a Fossil Fuel regime to another energy regime, then it works. The important point here is that Carbon Tax is just another way to get money, linking the funds collection for Carbon mitigation activities to fossil fuel use really has no rational basis, given that the tax has very little affect on consumption.    

Government - Resource Dependence & Big Government?

Excerpt - If this is substantiated by events - maybe the rest is true. 

Canada is a resource-rich country, unimaginable wealth is ours to use to build the most advantaged society on earth. An occurrence of grave concern is the liquidation of assets to fund government operations. This is the equivalent of a farmer selling his/her land to buy fertilizer, soon the farmer will run out of land to fertilize. The federal and provincial governments are presiding over the liquidation of non-renewable resources as fast as the market will purchase them. This is fine as long as the revenues this generates go to the establishment of other capital assets, but it is presently going to fund the operations of the government. Sell a million barrels of oil, build a hospital – ok, sell a million barrels of oil and pick up the garbage – not ok. Inherent in this reality are massive structural deficits. Take government revenues from taxation ONLY and if operating expenses exceed that, you've got a structural deficit – presently most governments in Canada see royalties from the sale of raw resources as a legitimate source of funds for funding operations. The funds from royalties should be going toward long-term infrastructure and the development and enhancement of human capital.

In business, a company’s actions are constantly rationalized to the dynamics of the market in the pursuit of profit. The expansion of administrative costs in a company sees an almost immediate effect on profit and ownership seeks to rectify the situation. The time span of realization of error is crisp, the line of accountability clear this generates a circumstance where the organization responds quickly and effectively to frivolous and extraneous costs - the larger the organization the more muted this response becomes.

The nature of our political system generates a circumstance where the three contributing factors in favour of private enterprise, work against the government. In a company when an error in spending is made, the reporting structure sends information immediately to a concentrated entity - management and ownership, which responds. In government when an error in spending occurs, the time it takes for the people affected (the taxpayer) to realize it, events have extended beyond effective response. Worse, there is every incentive for the people who made the decision to conceal the event, as the individuals executing the error are financially unharmed by the event and can only be negatively affected by the public knowing. Further exacerbating the situation is that the reporting structure of the government is arcane which mutes the resolution of the event in the context of accounting. It is in this atmosphere that poor practices and waste continue in government, increasing the cost of services and exacting a greater and greater toll on the taxpayer. This phenomenon is attributable to the size of an organization and in equal measure to the nature of government having an inherent challenge in this regard.

All matters of human exchange involve a transaction. Contemplate your daily life and count the number of transactions you make through the course of your day. If for every $10 purchase a $10 bank charge was levied on the transaction, you would have half as much money to pursue life. This is the exact circumstance most of us living in Canada, where for every $1 we make the government takes $1. As government burgeons, there is an exponential increase in cost to the taxpayer. As government grows, so too does its involvement in all exchange. Transaction costs that emanate from government-mandated requirements to utilize other services, the $1000 conveyance fee to transfer a house, the airport fee, the list is frighteningly immense. These represent transaction costs that serve as a drag on the actions of the population – retarding citizens’ ability to provide for themselves and retarding the ability for people to utilize resources for enterprise, leaving the government with a smaller, heavier taxed tax base. This is the vicious downward spiral that causes the government to cave in on itself, like a snake eating its own tail.

As government grows and extends greater control over the human exchange, a policy requiring licensing comes into play. A driver’s licence is a document that indicates competency around the operation of a motor vehicle and is relatively benign as its access is determined by the ability to pay and competency alone. There are other cases, however, where government licensing has other motivations and unintended consequences. In the case of licensing of frequency for broadcasting, licensing was originally required for the management of frequency – to avoid one broadcaster interfering with another. As time progressed licensing progressed under other motivations. Naturally, an incumbent broadcaster wants less, rather than more competition and would lobby the government to preclude new entrants. Government itself openly admits in its literature that it uses licensing to restrict the supply of broadcasting services. When government takes actions which distort the natural ebb and flow of business, the consequences are almost always negative. In the case of broadcasting, lower numbers of people restricted the supply of advertising raising the cost of businesses to promote themselves – ultimately increasing the cost of goods and services as the media spectrum of the offering was limited. People have been forced to consume media content of inferior quality and interest. While it is appropriate for government to seek to offer strategic direction- meddling with distorting micro policy is most inhibiting. The government in this case should seek harmonious utilization of the airways and allow the market to work.                   

Tax policy in Canada is very complex so there is an extreme cost to the citizenry, firstly in negotiating the maze of tax policy to minimize payment and secondly in the actual paying of the tax. Complex taxation policy, in and of itself, increases transaction costs, and worse, is the waste of human capital taken in administering taxes. The complexity of the system takes some of our best minds away from productive contribution to society to attend to the analysis of complex policy to determine the most beneficial “interpretation” of tax legislation, while some more of our other best minds at Revenue Canada are taken away from productive pursuits to devise ways to respond to the interpretations of the first group. All this intellectual capacity is wasted; it is hard to imagine a more destructive way for the government to conduct itself. By simplifying the tax system, this waste is reduced, government requirement for enforcement is reduced and a retraction in government operating costs effects a positive situation by reducing tax requirements – a positive cycle is initiated. Opportunities abound to reduce the complexity of government and hence the cost of government. This is just the tax system; contemplate the legal system and any of the other multitude of government services. Government is too important to allow actions that serve to damage its own long-term standing.

Canada is a resource-rich country, unimaginable wealth is ours to use to build the most advantaged society on earth. An occurrence of grave concern is the liquidation of assets to fund government operations. This is the equivalent of a farmer selling his/her land to buy fertilizer, soon the farmer will run out of land to fertilize. The federal and provincial governments are presiding over the liquidation of non-renewable resources as fast as the market will purchase them. This is fine as long as the revenues this generates go to the establishment of other capital assets, but it is presently going to fund the operations of the government. Sell a million barrels of oil, build a hospital – ok, sell a million barrels of oil and pick up the garbage – not ok. Inherent in this reality are massive structural deficits. Take government revenues from taxation ONLY and if operating expenses exceed that, you've got a structural deficit – presently most governments in Canada see royalties from the sale of raw resources as a legitimate source of funds for funding operations. The funds from royalties should be going toward long-term infrastructure and the development and enhancement of human capital.

There needs to be an apolitical rationing mechanism that limits the growth of government so that government and economy are optimally matched. The challenge we face now is that governments are strongly incentivized to spend more, more as a percentage of GDP, in the quest for public approval. We elect a government on how best to administer public resources and choices related to this task need to reside with elected officials. There are objective means to assess the optimal size of government, within reasonable variance. The size of government is determined by the size of the budget at any given point in time. In the same way that the central bank has a narrow set of parameters to set interbank rates at arm’s length from the government, so too could a “Budgetary Review” official have a narrow set of parameters and function at arm’s length from the government to set the size of the budget.

As stated before, there is a point where the government is an organ supported by the people as an entity unto itself – rather than being the facilitator of human exchange, it becomes the focus of the national endeavour. It is then like the proverbial snake eating its tail – a circumstance that is clearly unsustainable. Canada has a productivity deficit; perhaps we need look no further than the overall transaction cost that is government to find the key contributing factor.  

CLICK BELOW - More Thoughts On the Issue

Thoughts on - Counter Cyclical Spending

Senate - Government Financial Monitor?

Government Resource Revenue Dependence

Government - Ensuring Optimum Size

Senate Spending & Restructuring

Government Scale & Accountability  

Apartment Complex Kamloops

Remembering Harry S. Thomson

My hero and the price of war.

Harry Stewart Thomson is my hero, you may have guessed by the name, he was my father. He was born in Foremost Alberta on a farm claimed and built by his father, Edward Thomson. When he was age seven his father Edward died and my grandmother – English - took him “home” to England. He became successful in Real Estate and in 1938 decided to take a round the world tour, after visiting Australia, New York – he arrived back in Calgary. By then it was 1939 and the “clouds of war” were brewing – he decided to “join up”. There were three lines, the army, the navy and the air force – it was his intent to join the navy, the line was too long so he chose the air force instead – he became a pilot.

He began his service in 1939 and remained in active duty throughout the war and left the air force in 1947, he was flying “VPs” to United Nations meetings, a fresh faced young officer suggested he needed replacement hat for the one he had used the entire war – with that he took his leave.

His flight crew and he were on active duty together for 6 years, they all survived the war, a record I am most proud of. I suspect this was a product of his core belief that caution today would allow you to fight tomorrow. It was also likely a product of his most ardently promoted belief - there is care and respect required in association with others.

There are photographs of he and his crew standing in front of his bomber and the plane was literally holes from one end to the other. On one occasion his plane was damaged by enemy fire in such a way that he was unable to lower his landing gear or to drop his bombs. He was forced to do a “belly” landing, to land the plane on a grassy strip absent landing gear. They managed to land the plane, but in the crash fuel leaked, so fire was imminent. The crew all got out, ran and lay down in a nearby depression in the ground. The plane became engulfed in flames and the bombs detonated, the blast “went over them” and destroyed a number of buildings around them. It is reported they retired to the mess, had “few” drinks and were called upon to it all again the next day.

It is one thing to be faced with adversity and managing, to have had the option to avoid adversity and to have volunteered to help in an epic cause is by definition courage.  I am proud he did it, I am grateful he gave the best six years of his life to make this world fit for us to live in. His sacrifice never ended there though, as is the case for most veterans, the affects from the extremes of war lingered; I attribute his early death at forty seven from a heart attack to the rigours of war and their aftermath. As is the case for many veterans’ families, that was the price we paid for a world fit to live in.

We should take the time to contemplate what was won for us, fascism and tyranny were quelled at an estimated cost of 60 million lives. This offense to humanity was prosecuted by very few people; sadly, many who were co-opted were good people, this is the inherent tragedy in the assent of a twisted dogma. In Canada, we should be mindful of what a few can to do to many.

 “The price of liberty is constant vigilance” Thomas Jefferson 

Kamloops Real Estate - Market Perspective

FIRST DRAFT

I am presently in the process of initiating the construction of a apartment complex in Kamloops. This is a summary of my general perception of the market for prospective purchasers - marco picture / local picture. If anyone had input as to how they perceive its accuracy I would be most grateful.    

READING TIME: 2 minutes 

Real Estate Market Perspective – Apartment Complex Kamloops

The observations offered here are born of the assessment of the market in the context of the construction and sale of an apartment complex that accesses the upper market decile, with unit prices ranging from $350k to $850k. This complex’s interface with the market is somewhat less affected by the typical influencing factors in the market - employment, interest rates, general economy etc., because it is targeted, in large measure, to a discerning buyer at financial maturity – they are likely to buy a second residence or they are downsizing as a part of the typical life course.  

While this offering is to a degree atypical, there is opportunity to at the upper margins of the “investment market” to incite participation. The proponent senses if the investment market is provisioned for that a favourable outcome will ensue; so long as, the theme of the building is held paramount in terms of ensuring that there is compatibility with occupants and or the strategic allocation of space.

It is the sense of the proponent that we have a stable local market generally, that the local market has recently been trading more or less sideways against stable inventory and the local market is beginning to show some modest growth. The violent undulations of other markets and of the Kamloops market in the past, are less present in the contemporary Kamloops market, due in large measure to a more diversified local economy and perhaps, Kamloops is now becoming a moderate destination for lower mainland and prairie residents accessing the advantages of our market vis-a’-vis larger center’s markets.

This local market perspective is offered against the backdrop of sustained very low interests rates in the near and perhaps midterm, rising employment, a moderately favourable near term economic picture and an anticipated acceleration is to a strong and sustained up cycle in the medium and long term. This perspective is offered on the basis of central bank actions and a perception that, the cycles that were causal in generating the recession are correcting so as to effect a confluence of events to feed a super cycle beginning in and around 2018.

This general market picture bodes well for the proposed development. The larger units targeting to people downsizing from large homes are to a degree “isolated” from the market, given the type and nature of the purchaser. The smaller units targeted to a discerning lateral purchaser or “investor purchaser” land at the about the average home value in Kamloops and the upper end of the apartment market, this narrow market segment (market segment peculiar to this building) will be supported by an historical (20 year average) absorption rate of approximately 7 - 10 units per month, as well as, the favourable local and general market conditions.    

Jian Ghomeshi - the Most Challenging of Events

As a regular listener to “Q” I am dismayed at recent events surrounding Mr. Ghomeshi. The specter of sexual harassment and or violence against women is disturbing. The fact that the allegations being leveled against Mr. Ghomeshi is disturbing and very serious in nature, should drive behavior by all parties that is prudent. In listening to CBC radio and digesting the materials related to the issue on the web; people should know they are doing one of two things in publishing “hearsay”; they are either facilitating a vendetta OR prosecuting someone for non-consensual sex. Given the vulnerability of people in positions of “celebrity” to slanderous attack, judgment should be reserved until all the facts are in – especially in matters related to criminality, like non-consensual sex.

We can hold moral beliefs, we can direct support or withdraw support to others based on our own moral perspective, we do however, need to be mindful of the rights of consenting adults to interface as they deem appropriate. I am unaware of the breadth of accusations being leveled against Mr. Ghomeshi, or the rationale that has driven CBC management’s conduct. I am seriously challenged by the reports that have emerged out of the controversy related to violence and misconduct toward women, the point is they are only “allegations”. I am seriously challenged by Mr. Ghomeshi’s own reported practices for my own moral reasons. I am equally concerned however, that a man maybe being ridiculed, defamed and criminalized on hearsay alone absent due process.

The appropriateness of actions by the CBC and others in processing the allegations leveled against Mr. Ghomeshi should be firstly contemplated in the presence or absence of consent as determined by due process. Personal moral perspectives can be answered to in civil society, people may choose to associate with him or not – that is their right. No person or organization should preempt, or prejudge, the sober examination of the facts that due process provides – that is his right. We should all remember, people can say anything.