Rants – Page 37 – a sibilant intake of breath

Subsidizing Mackenzie Valley gas

It is hard to read the decision of the current government to support the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline as anything aside from a disappointment. To begin with, it was inappropriate to have the decision announced by the minister of the environment. After all, he should be the one in cabinet demanding that the environmental impacts of the plan be fully investigated. Secondly, it seems inappropriate to offer such aid while the Joint Review Panel is still examining the likely social and economic impacts of the plan.

If we are going to successfully address climate change, we are going to need to leave most of the carbon trapped in the planet’s remaining fossil fuels underground. By the same token, we will need to develop energy sources that are compatible with that goal. At this juncture in history, I can see the case for providing government funding to help with the up-front capital costs of concentrating solar, wind, or geothermal plants. It is a lot harder to see why oil and gas companies that were recently pulling in record profits deserve financial support at taxpayer expense.

Greyhound’s pointless security

On my way to Toronto last weekend, I was subjected to Greyhound’s farcical new ‘security screening.’

People were made to stand in a line in front of a roped-off area. One by one, they removed metal objects from their pockets, placed them in a dish, and had a metal detecting wand waved over then. At the same time, another security person spent a couple of second poking around in the top few inches of the person’s carry-on bag. The person then entered the roped-off area, carrying their carry-on and checked bags with them, waiting for the rest of the line to be processed.

Ways to get a weapon past this system:

Get one not made of metal, like a ceramic knife, and put it in your pocket.
Put it below the top few inches of your backpack.
Hide it inside a hollowed-out book, inside a piece of electronics, etc.
Put it in your wallet. With a wallet that can take an unfolded bill, you could fit a few flat throwing knives.
Tape it to the bottom of your shoe.
Put it in your checked baggage, remove it while you are waiting on the far side of the line.
Go through the screening, ask to go use the bathroom, collect your weapon, and return to the ‘screened’ area.
Before entering the bus station, hide a weapon outside, in the vicinity of where your bus will pull in. Pick it up before boarding.
Use a weapon that is both deadly and innocuous: such as a cane, umbrella, or strong rope.
Get on at a rural stop, instead of Ottawa.
Get on in Toronto, instead of Ottawa, since they don’t seem to be bothering with the screening there.
Etc.

I am not saying that people should actually bring weapons on Greyhound buses, and I am most certainly not saying that Greyhound should tighten their security to make these tactics useless. I am saying that the new screening is nothing more than security theatre. It does nothing to make Greyhound buses safer, though it will add needlessly to ticket prices.

On a more philosophical level, it also perpetuates the kind of low-freedom, security-obsessed society that many people seem to expect. It would be far healthier to acknowledge that the world contains risks while also noticing that countermeasures to reduce those risks have real costs, whether in hard currency or in convenience or privacy or liberty.

Fishing for krill

On several occasions, I have discussed the concept of ‘fishing down’ through marine food webs: starting with the top predator species, like tuna, and moving to smaller and smaller creatures as the big ones are depleted. In the waters around Antarctica, this process has come very close to reaching its logical extreme. Fishing for krill has become a big business.

Krill are shrimp-like marine invertebrates that make up a significant portion of the world’s zooplankton: the tiny creatures that eat phytoplankton algae. They, in turn, are eaten by all manner of other creatures, ranging up to large whales. Fishing them extensively risks knocking a whole tier out of the food web, with unknown but potentially severe consequences for all other forms of life in the ecosystem.

The krill that are caught are processed for fatty acids, used to make medicine, and fed to farmed fish. In particular, they are useful for giving farmed salmon more of a red colour, in contrast to the sickly looking pale pink much of farm salmon takes on. The current annual catch is estimated to be between 150 – 200,000 tonnes: much of that taken from the waters around Antarctica. Through the use of new technology, a planned new ship (the FV Saga Sea) will apparently be capable of collecting 120,000 tonnes annually. That is nearly one 1000th of the low estimate for the total global biomass of krill, and more such ships are planned.

While it may be that fishing for krill at this scale doesn’t pose a danger to marine ecosystems, it is worth noting that we have no scientific basis for being confident of that. An experiment is simply being performed in unregulated waters, which will have unknown future consequences. As with so many other instances of humanity’s engagement with the natural world, one cannot shake the sense that we are being awfully reckless.

Environmentalism: a faith or a fad?

If you want to seriously annoy environmentalists like me, there are two assertions that will rarely fail:

Environmentalism is a new religion.
Environmentalism is just a fad.

The first view generally arises from fundamental confusion on the part of the person making the assertion. Since they are used to seeing arguments about the morality of individual action presented in religious terms, they assume that anything that involves such arguments must be religious. The faulty syllogism is roughly: religion tries to tell me how to live, environmentalism tries to tell me how to live, therefore environmentalism is religion. This isn’t the case – both because the syllogism is fundamentally invalid, and because there are key differences in the basis for religion and environmentalism, respectively. The second argument does have some evidence to support it, but there is an overwhelming case for hoping it proves untrue in the long term.

Starting with the religion argument, the first step is to establish the nature of religion. The key element of ‘faith’ is a willingness to accept something without empirical evidence: whether it is the existence of a god, the existing of karma, or whatever. Religious beliefs of this kind cannot be empirically disproved. By contrast, virtually all claims made by environmentalists are dependent on their empirical correctness for strength. If mercury didn’t actually poison people, we would be wrong for avoiding it on that basis. The only non-empirical claims behind environmentalism are about what has value. If we didn’t value human life or the natural world, we would have no reason to be concerned about pollution or climate change, and we would have no reason to take action to prevent them.

Every environmental position and argument is open to as much empirical and logical scrutiny anyone cares to apply to it. Everyone is free to perform whatever experiments they like and, if those experiments produce interesting or unexpected results that can be reproduced by others, they can expect them to eventually become part of the body of scientific knowledge. Likewise, people are free to argue about the moral and logical premises of the ‘what should we value’ debate.

Moving on to the ‘fad’ argument, it is certainly the case that public interest in the environment waxes and wanes. Sometimes, catastrophic events draw special attention to the issue. At other times, people find their attention drawn to other happenings. That being said, I think Denis Hayes is right to argue that: “If environment is a fad, it’s going to be our last fad.” Right now, humanity is living with the following assumptions at least implicitly made: (a) the planet can support six billion of us, with more being added daily (b) at least for most of those people, material consumption can continue to rise at several percent per year. Even if we came up with some miracle machine to solve climate change tomorrow, some new issue would arise as the ratio between the total available mass and energy on the planet and the fraction used by human beings continued to fall.

We live in a finite world and, in at least some cases, we are starting to brush against the physical limitations that exist. For that simple reason, environmentalism is important and likely to be enduring. Thankfully, unlike religions which tend to get tangled up in their own history (witness all those trying to prove that the Bible is somehow historically accurate), environmentalism is generally scientifically grounded. As such, its content and prescriptions have the potential to improve as our understanding of the world deepens. For that, we should all be thankful.

For the oil sands, PR is not the problem

In a bizarre story, The Globe and Mail is reporting on how representatives of the oil sands industry are claiming to have “‘dropped the ball’ in engaging with the public about the environmental effects of its energy developments.” This is a bit like saying that the industry has thus far been unsuccessful in deceiving people about the environmental impacts of oil sands operations, which definitely deserve the filthy image they have earned.

The problem with the oil sands certainly isn’t their public relations: it is their greenhouse gas emissions, their destruction of the boreal forest, their contamination of water, and so forth. Altering those aspects of the industry cannot be achieved through media messaging. It is dispiriting – though unsurprising – that the companies involved are keener on giving people the sense that their operations are clean (or at least improving), rather than actually raising standards. While oil sands production cannot be made into an environmentally benign activity, having all facilities adopt the best standards in other existing facilities could make a significant contribution towards reducing the level of harm they produce.

‘Third hand smoke’

In the last couple of days, I have seen a number of news sources talking about ‘third hand smoke.’ This refers to the blindingly obvious fact that smokers stink, as do their clothes, homes, furniture, cars, etc. Before the UK smoking ban, just spending a night in a pub would leave your clothes smelling appreciably of tobacco for several days (and often several washes) afterwards. Anyone who has spent a lot of time riding in buses or airplanes will be able to tell you that a heavy smoker can usually be identified from a couple of seats away, even if they don’t happen to be smoking during the voyage. It is similarly obvious that those breathing the rank odour of stale tobacco are probably inhaling some of the toxins that come along with it, as well.

I maintain that smoking is one of the most vile habits a person can have (as well as being a singularly idiotic affront against your own health). Hopefully, the increasingly society-wide rejection of the practice will spread, become more firmly entrenched, and eventually emerge as the worldwide norm.

Sorting digital music

When it comes to the organization of music, I am probably one of the most obsessive people out there. I would actually rather delete a song I cannot properly categorize than retain it as ‘Track 1’ by ‘Unknown Artist.’ Also, once I start categorizing something such as music or photos, I cannot rest easy until the task is done. It’s a tendency I need to be aware of and careful about. The decision to tag all my iPhoto images for which friends are in them, for example, produced about three days worth of intense work.

Of course, iTunes is the ultimate enabler for music organization obsessives. It puts everything into a big database: song ratings (all my songs are rated), artists, titles, play counts, last played dates, etc. It lets you set up smart playlists that, for example, consist only of songs rated four or five stars and haven’t been played in the last two weeks. You can also tag your songs as Canadian, too obscene to be included in a random party playlist, or whatever other designations are useful to you. I have most of my good music sorted into mood-based categories, including angry, brazen, demure, dramatic, energetic, rebellious, sombre, and upbeat.

One annoying element of the age of digital music is the enduring character of mix CDs consisting of CD-style music tracks, rather than data files. Almost invariably, this means that someone somewhere converted the uncompressed music on a CD into an MP3, AAC, or WMA file. Then, someone took that compressed file and stretched it back into CD format. If you then try to re-compressed the previously compressed and de-compressed file, you encounter a notable loss of quality. It would be far better if people made mix CDs consisting of data files (those in a lossless format would be especially appreciated, and still significantly smaller than uncompressed music files).

One final annoyance I will mention is the fact that my iPod is no longer large enough to store my music collection. Since I am now about 500 megabytes beyond its capacity, I need to manually ‘uncheck’ songs so that it can synchronize properly. Beyond being a pain, this somewhat undermines the iPod concept, which is really to have all your music available at a touch. My iPod is an old 4th generation 20GB model. It was replaced four times under an extended warranty that has since expired, and it probably doesn’t have enormously more time left in the world of working gear. When it bites the bullet, I will buy something large enough to store many years worth of future musical acquisitions.

The Pope on homosexuality and the environment

Recently, the Pope announced that fighting homosexuality is just as important as protecting the rainforest. These comments have been rightly attacked from many angles. For me, what it highlights most is the ways in which religion can produce poor prioritization of issues. By according certain things sacred or venerated status, they can become a disproportionate focus for attention, a spark for conflicts, and an obstacle to the completion of more important work. Because religions elevate acts that are purely symbolic (say, baptism) to having a high level of perceived practical importance, they can get in the way of the achievement of practical goals, like enhancing and protecting human health and welfare, as well as that of the natural world. To those who say that religion is necessary to make the majority of people act in moral ways, it can be riposted that many of the supposedly moral issues that get the most attention are basically distractions from the real challenges being confronted by humanity.

This is precisely the property of religion that is satirized by Jonathan Swift in the conflict between the Big Enders and the Little Enders in Gulliver’s Travels. Ultimately, the issue of what gender of people a person is attracted to (or wishes to marry) has as much relevance for other people as which side they choose to crack their boiled eggs on. In spite of that, there are those who successfully employ emotions stirred up over such trivial issues as means to bolster their own support by turning people against one another.

Religion isn’t the only force within society that elevates the symbolic to the practical in a potentially harmful or distorting way. Certainly, there are comparable transformations within politics: in which symbols come to be more important than the things they represent, and their defence comes to be a distraction from more important endeavours. Whatever the cause of such instances of ‘missing the point,’ it is to be lamented. It must be hoped that people in a few hundred years will have learned enough to laugh at an idea so silly that protecting the environment and reinforcing traditional gender norms are (a) both desirable ends or (b) equally worthy of attention.

The science section at the Rideau Chapters

The science section at the Rideau Centre Chapters always depresses me. It is often the most disorganized section of the store – tucked, as it is, in the very back corner. Books have frequently been relocated by customers and not re-shelved by staff, and the organizational system is deeply flawed even when properly implemented. For one thing, it has too many confusing sub-sections. It hardly makes sense to have a single shelf set aside for ‘physics’ books, when it is almost impossible to guess whether a specific tome will be in ‘physics,’ ‘mathematics,’ or the catch-all ‘science’ category. To top it all off, the catch-all category has been alphabetized in a bewildering serpent pattern, twisted back against itself and interrupted with random intrusions.

My two final gripes are that the science section is mysteriously co-mingled with the section on pet care (our most sophisticated form of understanding about the universe, lumped in with poodle grooming) and that the science section contains so many books of very dubious scientific merit, such as paranoid and groundless exposes on how MMR vaccines supposedly cause autism (they don’t, though they have saved countless infant lives).

While commercial pressures may legitimately dictate that the pilates section be more accessible, better organized, and more well-trafficked than the physics or biology sections, it is nonetheless saddening.

The Seventh Seal

Tonight, I watched Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal with Gabe. My overall impression is that the film is a bit like high runway fashion: impractical, often incomprehensible, but likely to filter down and become part of many subsequent pieces of mainstream art.

All told, I prefer more straightforward storytelling. Excessively arty and intellectual films annoy me. This film doesn’t quite cross into that territory (unlike films like The Hours and Lost in Translation, which I strongly disliked), but it has a similar rarefied, abstract quality. I don’t feel annoyed for having watched it, but I don’t think I got any of the messages the film-maker intended, either.