Just when we were starting to think the main thing wrong with the Conservatives is their leader, Harper, they come roaring up with a ferocious reminder that they really are a dangerous bunch who really do not know how to use a knife and fork.
In the interior of BC a current Member of Parliament, a Conservative, is helping a new Conservative candidate to run for office in the next election. The present MP for the riding however is a member of the NDP, one whose popularity among voters has risen with each of the past two elections.
The Conservative MP now helping out the newly minted Conservative candidate, has said to listeners to a radio show not to bother with their elected MP, and if they want to approach government they should contact the new candidate, who is presently the mayor of a small town in the riding. This Conservative MP, Dick Harris, said that constituents would have a great benefit from having direct contact with the government which they have not had since 2004 ( because they have twice elected an NDP MP). That NDP MP, Nathan Cullen said he was floored by the vulgarity of Dick Harris who is "suggesting that the whole voting process is almost unnecessary by the Conservative perspective... because they will just simply appoint whom they wish to hear from as opposed to whom the people have chosen..."
Again we see that at heart this bunch is really the Reform crowd. They do not believe in democracy at all. They believe only in power. Let loose with a majority in power in Ottawa they would be as reliable as a bank robber let loose in an empty bank with the tills and vault stuffed with cash, and not a guard in sight. What the heck, if there are none but themselves to guard the bank, who cares about anyone else. They don't. Harper is a very bad thing. Harper's near gangster supporters are just as bad. Pretty soon they would decide that we do not really need elections either, in fact what is the point of a vote once they have power. People can always write to them, couldn't they. Sure.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
THE URBAN BULLY
PART 4
Outside the workplace, as in responding to academic or polemical bullying, you do not answer the bully directly other than by a short sharp rebuke, as in :"your comments are so grossly offensive that I will protest to your employer [editor, publisher, patron or promoter] rather than waste time on you." Then attack the audience, and that is very definitely not your audience but that of the bully, perhaps better called his protectors. Think carefully about exactly who that audience is, and think about what will disturb that specific audience, do not waste time on general motherhood issues. Instead of saying, "how can you editors publish such a bully," it would be better to say, "you can see from these quotes that this bully has no regard for his readers or the editors who have bought his material. Perhaps he has grown too big for his britches." Or "you can see from these comparison quotes that he just takes material from other writers and crudely uses it as his own. You may have liability from this."
However, to directly answer the bully, once identification has been made, is an act that can only be described as sincerely stupid. It will give the bully a great opportunity, which it will seize upon with joy, to kick you all around the floor.
Remember, the bully is not concerned with truth at all, just with the security of its audience and the certainty that it does have its claws fastened on a real victim. The only answer that is useful, as stated here, is one short, sharp and tight invitation to go to hell. Beyond that, let the bully get anxious while you attack the audience. And do not make any attempt at all to construct elegant argument based on reference to logical fallacies, or invite the bully to be "rational" (are you kidding?), or try to develop an imaginary round of verbal fencing (you may as well flounce across the floor in a tutu), or make phoney, nice or polite, or all the other chicken hearted things that intellectuals tend to do. To level a bully is a socially valuable function, so don't fool around, get into it and cut meat.
Every few days, for a week or so,get up and read the motto you have printed out, such as who among this creeps' possible audience shall I write to today, or who among my supporters shall I ask to attack his audience. In this effort persistence will pay off hugely. But who, if not you, will supply the persistence, and do not say "form letters".
Find something in the bully's production that should be corrected, if it is a matter of expert knowledge, and try to find some expert to do a short study, or more likely, tell you the chapter and verse of exactly why it is wrong. When you get these types of problems really understood then it is possible to write about them in a way that is unanswerable, often using material right at hand, instead of pages of footnotes. But this requires genuine intellectual work, which must must be done by someone for you (tricky) or by you yourself. If you want to show up the bully as an inferior specimen, you will surely have to make a superior effort.
Get close to the enemy. Look up the bully's other work, which is wonderfully possible on the internet today. Read its productions and get a feel for its proclivities and (usually) switches of position with fashion. Bullies do not care about truth, they just want to know what their likely audience wants to hear so that they can produce that and with it scout for victims and adopt the audiences pet hatreds in their own victim pursuits. So their "research" tends to drop off as soon as they can find something they can use to beat a victim over the head with. If they find a quote to the effect that there is a mass of research supporting their position, or they can find a claim based on apparent authority, they are not likely to go into that research to see if it exists and is reliable.
And since the main priority for the bully is to arm itself to attack the present victim, you are quite likely to find the bully worked the other side of the street in some piece a few years back. The consistent theme among literary bullies is that they will attack from the security of the established position in business and technology whatever that position is at the moment. That is where the security is, so that is where the bully will nest.
If by some unhappy chance the bully is on your side of an issue, then you should spare no effort to cut down the SOB and plow the ground he stood on with salt. Pro Labor bullies ALWAYS end up on the side of the worst of the exploiters, and when you consider how totally individual and selfish are their concerns you can see why. You can make book on their proposals such that going against what they propose has a pretty good chance of being the right choice.
There is one more thing. If you find that a bully quite suddenly tries to make friends or becomes polite, watch out. That just means the bully has intuitively felt that you are perhaps not a real victim and it wants to cautiously scout around a bit to see what you have got. If you let such a bully get close to you it will suddenly attack and give you quite a start. Remember, bullies are not like ordinary people, do not really want to resolve issues, and at bottom are actually mentally twisted a bit.
We are working into a time in society when we absolutely must have rational debates about a lot of very confusing stuff. It is definitely a time to make short work of bullies.
Conclusion of the Post on Bullies
Gramps
Outside the workplace, as in responding to academic or polemical bullying, you do not answer the bully directly other than by a short sharp rebuke, as in :"your comments are so grossly offensive that I will protest to your employer [editor, publisher, patron or promoter] rather than waste time on you." Then attack the audience, and that is very definitely not your audience but that of the bully, perhaps better called his protectors. Think carefully about exactly who that audience is, and think about what will disturb that specific audience, do not waste time on general motherhood issues. Instead of saying, "how can you editors publish such a bully," it would be better to say, "you can see from these quotes that this bully has no regard for his readers or the editors who have bought his material. Perhaps he has grown too big for his britches." Or "you can see from these comparison quotes that he just takes material from other writers and crudely uses it as his own. You may have liability from this."
However, to directly answer the bully, once identification has been made, is an act that can only be described as sincerely stupid. It will give the bully a great opportunity, which it will seize upon with joy, to kick you all around the floor.
Remember, the bully is not concerned with truth at all, just with the security of its audience and the certainty that it does have its claws fastened on a real victim. The only answer that is useful, as stated here, is one short, sharp and tight invitation to go to hell. Beyond that, let the bully get anxious while you attack the audience. And do not make any attempt at all to construct elegant argument based on reference to logical fallacies, or invite the bully to be "rational" (are you kidding?), or try to develop an imaginary round of verbal fencing (you may as well flounce across the floor in a tutu), or make phoney, nice or polite, or all the other chicken hearted things that intellectuals tend to do. To level a bully is a socially valuable function, so don't fool around, get into it and cut meat.
Every few days, for a week or so,get up and read the motto you have printed out, such as who among this creeps' possible audience shall I write to today, or who among my supporters shall I ask to attack his audience. In this effort persistence will pay off hugely. But who, if not you, will supply the persistence, and do not say "form letters".
Find something in the bully's production that should be corrected, if it is a matter of expert knowledge, and try to find some expert to do a short study, or more likely, tell you the chapter and verse of exactly why it is wrong. When you get these types of problems really understood then it is possible to write about them in a way that is unanswerable, often using material right at hand, instead of pages of footnotes. But this requires genuine intellectual work, which must must be done by someone for you (tricky) or by you yourself. If you want to show up the bully as an inferior specimen, you will surely have to make a superior effort.
Get close to the enemy. Look up the bully's other work, which is wonderfully possible on the internet today. Read its productions and get a feel for its proclivities and (usually) switches of position with fashion. Bullies do not care about truth, they just want to know what their likely audience wants to hear so that they can produce that and with it scout for victims and adopt the audiences pet hatreds in their own victim pursuits. So their "research" tends to drop off as soon as they can find something they can use to beat a victim over the head with. If they find a quote to the effect that there is a mass of research supporting their position, or they can find a claim based on apparent authority, they are not likely to go into that research to see if it exists and is reliable.
And since the main priority for the bully is to arm itself to attack the present victim, you are quite likely to find the bully worked the other side of the street in some piece a few years back. The consistent theme among literary bullies is that they will attack from the security of the established position in business and technology whatever that position is at the moment. That is where the security is, so that is where the bully will nest.
If by some unhappy chance the bully is on your side of an issue, then you should spare no effort to cut down the SOB and plow the ground he stood on with salt. Pro Labor bullies ALWAYS end up on the side of the worst of the exploiters, and when you consider how totally individual and selfish are their concerns you can see why. You can make book on their proposals such that going against what they propose has a pretty good chance of being the right choice.
There is one more thing. If you find that a bully quite suddenly tries to make friends or becomes polite, watch out. That just means the bully has intuitively felt that you are perhaps not a real victim and it wants to cautiously scout around a bit to see what you have got. If you let such a bully get close to you it will suddenly attack and give you quite a start. Remember, bullies are not like ordinary people, do not really want to resolve issues, and at bottom are actually mentally twisted a bit.
We are working into a time in society when we absolutely must have rational debates about a lot of very confusing stuff. It is definitely a time to make short work of bullies.
Conclusion of the Post on Bullies
Gramps
Monday, August 27, 2007
The House Servant
Today we hear that the Attorney General of the USA has resigned, and there he was all by himself at a podium, uttering the same words we have heard so often. What is this,no. 7 or is it 70 of the Disciples of Strauss and their pals swept into discard since last November. All it took, it seems, was the switch of a couple of dozen seats in the Congress and the historical broom started its awesome sweeping.
American political process is confused and raucous, but there is no escaping the majesty of their Constitutional Gods sweeping out the stable. I begin to wonder, is it possible it will reach all the way to the black and menacing figure of Cheney.
Already it seems that a harsh picture begins to emerge. One recalls Walt Disney's Sorcerer's Apprentice. When the apprentice calls up a spell to have the broom load the pails with water from the well and save him the work, he has no ability to stop them and soon the Sorcerer's house is flooded. Then the Sorcerer comes home.
So who is coming to the White House to take over from the hapless but bloody minded and very nasty little boy who has been causing such havoc these 7 years. Is it Bush the Elder and his group of pals from the oil industry, and other governing circles. The people who dress up in togas from time to time and wander around manicured gardens pretending they rule the world. Maybe the world is sort of like the fantasies that are so popular in movies, and they do fit. It is just the rest of us that are stuck in the mud.
They all remind me of a startling glimpse into that social world by Fitzgerald:
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy-they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
Shedding his killers one by one Junior Bush still has quite a ways to go, yet we have already stumbled into a swamp where the media have no idea what to say, anymore. Do you suppose they might start telling the truth, just because there is nothing else to say.
American political process is confused and raucous, but there is no escaping the majesty of their Constitutional Gods sweeping out the stable. I begin to wonder, is it possible it will reach all the way to the black and menacing figure of Cheney.
Already it seems that a harsh picture begins to emerge. One recalls Walt Disney's Sorcerer's Apprentice. When the apprentice calls up a spell to have the broom load the pails with water from the well and save him the work, he has no ability to stop them and soon the Sorcerer's house is flooded. Then the Sorcerer comes home.
So who is coming to the White House to take over from the hapless but bloody minded and very nasty little boy who has been causing such havoc these 7 years. Is it Bush the Elder and his group of pals from the oil industry, and other governing circles. The people who dress up in togas from time to time and wander around manicured gardens pretending they rule the world. Maybe the world is sort of like the fantasies that are so popular in movies, and they do fit. It is just the rest of us that are stuck in the mud.
They all remind me of a startling glimpse into that social world by Fitzgerald:
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy-they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
Shedding his killers one by one Junior Bush still has quite a ways to go, yet we have already stumbled into a swamp where the media have no idea what to say, anymore. Do you suppose they might start telling the truth, just because there is nothing else to say.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
PROMISES PROMISES
PART 3 of 3
Facts and Fantasies on auto emissions
We begin to see that far from being at least a good start at reducing tail pipe emissions, the 2005 Voluntary Agreement injures the public interest. Here is a list of just some of the defects we have observed:
1. The agreement is primarily an intention to note or witness what is happening in the auto making field that would be done, and largely has been done, without any agreement.
2. The level of gas efficiency has not been going up, it has been going down for over 15 years and this agreement masks that fact while providing no improvements of its own.
3. This agreement is fundamentally BAU or Business As Usual in car making. If we need to reduce emissions in a serious way, we are deceived by it.
4. As a result of the way we have watched our Federal Government proceed Canada is pretty well at the bottom of the performance list for western nations. Only the USA is worse, though we are not even sure of that. Apart from Kyoto treaty obligations we are a long way from Japan or the European Union. It is stated in one of the best studies of the whole question: "The United States and Canada have the lowest standards in term of fleet average fuel economy rating, and they have the highest greenhouse gas emission rates based on the EU testing procedure".
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Fuel efficiency Standards for Canada. Pollution Probe. February 2005. p.142)
5. By supporting this Agreement the Federal Government is assisting the car makers to avoid reductions they could and should be making, and hiding from Canadians that the Government already has a law that it can and should Proclaim, the 1976 Regulatory statute we have had on the books since then, and move promptly to regulate standards and enforce them.
6. In going along with the car makers the Federal government has allowed itself to be gradually moved away from legitimate public policy in reducing harmful emissions and into the promotion of sales interests of the car makers, which are not regulatory interests at all. The development of improved air conditioning in cars will reduce emissions overall by about 1.2 Mt CO2 e (as we can see from the California university study, Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement. U of California (Davis). Institute of Transportation Studies.N.P. Lutsey 2006) but that object is pursued to please buyers, not to cut emissions. There is no need to push the car makers to please customers, as they are regularly doing that anyhow. We are permitting a car maker distraction activity to deceive the public.
7. Much the same can be said about the gradual substitution of lighter parts or new materials in the construction of car engines and bodies, which is also contributing a small amount to reductions (or increased power), as we can learn by review of the Lutsey study. It is however ridiculous for the Government to stand beside the industry ad men as they brag about the marvels of tail pipe emission reductions being achieved when the little that is done is simply the normal development of autos and is not undertaken to reduce emissions.
To do that would require the setting of standards that forced the car makers to substitute emission reduction for power increases, which they do not wish to do and do not have to do at present. Thus power improvement itself will lead to a modest 0.9 Mt CO2e emission reduction over the whole period of 1999 to 2010, but we need to do a great deal more than that. The same goes for variable valve lift, direct gasoline injection, cylinder deactivation and the other high tech terms we have been fed.
Despite industry bragging in the web page of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, we have not adopted a non-contentious way to bypass controversy and magically deliver painless emission control, we have just put ourselves in the position of suckers applauding carnival pitchmen while those elected to serve our true interests have gone along for the ride. If there have been any real improvements that is due to the influence of US standards development, which died over a decade ago excepting the push from California. However the Americans have not been heroes either, and we bump along at the bottom of world efforts, with them.
8. US standards are now voluntary as the Bush administration doggedly seeks to sabotage and delay any standard setting, though the EPA is going forward with Tier 2 now that the Supreme Court has largely brushed aside the Bush administration hindrance that delayed Federal Standards for CO2. While California has projected improvements in its 2006 legislation, it is contested by the car makers in the Courts. It is not that the goal of a 1/3 improvement over current standards (if they were being met) in the US, or the goal of 120 grams per kilometer in the EU, ( a standard being fought over now), cannot be realized. It is a question of the public will involved. against the opposition of the car makers.
9. The car makers use many dodges to fight against standards improvements. One is the claim that Canada is not a big enough market to do anything that varies from what the Americans do. We have seen that all kinds of different initiatives are happening in the US with individual states adopting the California law of 2006 (they can be called CAFE plus, or Tier 2) because of the failure of the Federal government to act. California does have regulation now and its population is similar to Canada. If they can cause the car makers to get moving on standards, and they certainly have, why can we not do so. We are a separate sovereign country and should have less difficulty than California. There some movement in some Canadian provinces to pick up the California legislation (BC).
10.There is good reason for suspicion that the car makers in Canada will not meet their promise to deliver 5.3 Mt CO2e even though they intended to do it without moving a muscle, so to speak. This is because they must first of all get the Federal government to agree to give them credit for everything that has happened to cars, which normally would be politically assured.
As Canadian federal politics is now developing that could become a very unpopular move for a government heading into an election before 2010. We do not know what the individual car makers have been doing, and it may be their industry association does not either, and never will. If the agreement becomes no longer a useful publicity tool, the car makers will simply drop it, behind a screen of lies about how the government has not been reasonable. Then our government will have no agreement, no progress that is provable, no data, no data bank for the past 10 years from industry, and no knowledge of what each company has been doing.
Of course it could be that the government has been collecting data all this time. One imagines federal inspectors secreting this or that car and measuring the tail pipe product. But it is pretty hard to get industry or company wide averages out of that. So it may be the case that the sooner the government tells the car makers to take their agreement and shove it, the better.
11. We can see some of the double dealing we can expect from the car makers in a few items already. For example, the Tier 2 regulations coming up in the US. Will the car makers get credit for those, say in nitrous oxides? One industry statement is referred to in the Lutsey study to the effect that there is "no double billing for NOx" but in a different statement it is set out that the Canadian auto industry expects to be credited with GHG emissions reductions for their actions in response to the Tier 2 standards ( in this case established for pollutant criteria control).
12. The same problem will surely come up with respect to fuel substitution such as blending ethanol in gasoline. A government official has stated that this is outside the Voluntary agreement but that is probably because the government has its own program to promote ethanol, so it would not want to see any improvement credited to two different programs. But who is ready to bet that the car makers will not claim it, and have already figured on a credit for it. The California study estimates that ethanol will reduce emissions by 0.68% in one year, 2010, and this is about 12.8% of the total of 5.3 Mt CO2e the car makers have promised.
13. And there are wild cards that the car makers will surely make a fuss about. Real world driving is not the same a lab conditions tests, and so standards need to allow for reality. There is plenty to argue about here. The Voluntary agreement assumes a gap of 20% but each new study seem to be widening the gap. Will our government throw up their hands when the car makers go off into a long argument about that.This item may amount to as much as 1.12% of the reduction (21.2% of the total 5.3 Mt CO2e) car makers promise.
14. It has turned out that tire pressure has a role in emission reduction and drivers need to be educated about that (apparently it could amount to as much as 0.5% of on road fuel use. The car makers in Canada have already announced they will be claiming for that. Can we doubt they will put in a claim for the One Tonne Challenge (a program since abandoned by the new Conservative government in its determination to get rid of whatever the last government was doing), and other driver education programs. But how can car makers claim a credit for an improvement in emission reduction associated with a government mounted consumer education program? They will.
15. So we can see, following the detailed account in the California university study, the car makers can meet the promise of 5.3 Mt CO2e if they are credited with everything that has reduced emissions, whether it was the result of outdated reference case projections from 1999, or involved technologies already in use when the Voluntary agreement was signed, whether it was already set to occur due to previous agreements or would occur regardless of the Voluntary agreement (Tier 2,on road real life driving adjustments, harmonized fuel consumption with USA, ethanol adjustment) or whether the result of regulations made for reasons other than climate change such as Tier 2 for specific pollutants and tire monitoring programs for safety reasons, even driver education.
There is plenty for government to resist there in the Government-Industry committee set up by the Voluntary Agreement to "adjust" the claims of the car makers to ensure "fairness". It is hard to see even the pro-business Harper regime going for all of it, but where are we if they do? And how will we know what they are about to do until after they have done it and put out the usual joint statement.
16. If the industry obtains credits, as described in the California study, since the Government-industry group that is supposed to be functioning under the Voluntary agreement has not published anything, then the result can be a little greater that 5.3 Mt CO2e. The industry will make its "contribution". The Lutsey study also considers a more strict definition for the car makers to match. This one would be based on new emission reductions that did not include already established programs as GHG reduction initiatives. In other words this program would not credit the already established vehicle fuel and technology trends. In this case the target of 5.3 Mt CO2e reduction by 2010 is not met.
17. The conclusions of the California study are sobering:
"The question arises as to whether the intent of the MOU is to witness a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction or to actually be responsible for causing a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction. It is apparently possible for the MOU agreement to be met with little or no impact on GHG emissions from Canada's fleet. If the MOU oversight committee decides to credit each of the mechanisms discussed, the primary role of the Canada GHG MOU would be to simply re-label a series of already-established programs as a GHG reduction initiative. "
Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement Lutsey U of Cal (Davis) 2006 at p.31
18. For the reasons set out Gramps concludes that the industry will try to push the government into accepting industry credit that makes the Agreement a mockery. Whether it succeeds or fails depends on public pressure on the issue of accountability. Either way, we have lost a lot of time. The government should be urged to proclaim the 1976 Regulatory legislation, move quickly to establish the equivalent of Tier 2 as a Regulatory goal to be met in tandem with the progress of the California standards (assuming court challenges to that program fail) and move on to rapid implementation.
August 28,2007
Conclusion of the post Promises, Promises on Auto Emissions
Gramps
Gramps
Facts and Fantasies on auto emissions
We begin to see that far from being at least a good start at reducing tail pipe emissions, the 2005 Voluntary Agreement injures the public interest. Here is a list of just some of the defects we have observed:
1. The agreement is primarily an intention to note or witness what is happening in the auto making field that would be done, and largely has been done, without any agreement.
2. The level of gas efficiency has not been going up, it has been going down for over 15 years and this agreement masks that fact while providing no improvements of its own.
3. This agreement is fundamentally BAU or Business As Usual in car making. If we need to reduce emissions in a serious way, we are deceived by it.
4. As a result of the way we have watched our Federal Government proceed Canada is pretty well at the bottom of the performance list for western nations. Only the USA is worse, though we are not even sure of that. Apart from Kyoto treaty obligations we are a long way from Japan or the European Union. It is stated in one of the best studies of the whole question: "The United States and Canada have the lowest standards in term of fleet average fuel economy rating, and they have the highest greenhouse gas emission rates based on the EU testing procedure".
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Fuel efficiency Standards for Canada. Pollution Probe. February 2005. p.142)
5. By supporting this Agreement the Federal Government is assisting the car makers to avoid reductions they could and should be making, and hiding from Canadians that the Government already has a law that it can and should Proclaim, the 1976 Regulatory statute we have had on the books since then, and move promptly to regulate standards and enforce them.
6. In going along with the car makers the Federal government has allowed itself to be gradually moved away from legitimate public policy in reducing harmful emissions and into the promotion of sales interests of the car makers, which are not regulatory interests at all. The development of improved air conditioning in cars will reduce emissions overall by about 1.2 Mt CO2 e (as we can see from the California university study, Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement. U of California (Davis). Institute of Transportation Studies.N.P. Lutsey 2006) but that object is pursued to please buyers, not to cut emissions. There is no need to push the car makers to please customers, as they are regularly doing that anyhow. We are permitting a car maker distraction activity to deceive the public.
7. Much the same can be said about the gradual substitution of lighter parts or new materials in the construction of car engines and bodies, which is also contributing a small amount to reductions (or increased power), as we can learn by review of the Lutsey study. It is however ridiculous for the Government to stand beside the industry ad men as they brag about the marvels of tail pipe emission reductions being achieved when the little that is done is simply the normal development of autos and is not undertaken to reduce emissions.
To do that would require the setting of standards that forced the car makers to substitute emission reduction for power increases, which they do not wish to do and do not have to do at present. Thus power improvement itself will lead to a modest 0.9 Mt CO2e emission reduction over the whole period of 1999 to 2010, but we need to do a great deal more than that. The same goes for variable valve lift, direct gasoline injection, cylinder deactivation and the other high tech terms we have been fed.
Despite industry bragging in the web page of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, we have not adopted a non-contentious way to bypass controversy and magically deliver painless emission control, we have just put ourselves in the position of suckers applauding carnival pitchmen while those elected to serve our true interests have gone along for the ride. If there have been any real improvements that is due to the influence of US standards development, which died over a decade ago excepting the push from California. However the Americans have not been heroes either, and we bump along at the bottom of world efforts, with them.
8. US standards are now voluntary as the Bush administration doggedly seeks to sabotage and delay any standard setting, though the EPA is going forward with Tier 2 now that the Supreme Court has largely brushed aside the Bush administration hindrance that delayed Federal Standards for CO2. While California has projected improvements in its 2006 legislation, it is contested by the car makers in the Courts. It is not that the goal of a 1/3 improvement over current standards (if they were being met) in the US, or the goal of 120 grams per kilometer in the EU, ( a standard being fought over now), cannot be realized. It is a question of the public will involved. against the opposition of the car makers.
9. The car makers use many dodges to fight against standards improvements. One is the claim that Canada is not a big enough market to do anything that varies from what the Americans do. We have seen that all kinds of different initiatives are happening in the US with individual states adopting the California law of 2006 (they can be called CAFE plus, or Tier 2) because of the failure of the Federal government to act. California does have regulation now and its population is similar to Canada. If they can cause the car makers to get moving on standards, and they certainly have, why can we not do so. We are a separate sovereign country and should have less difficulty than California. There some movement in some Canadian provinces to pick up the California legislation (BC).
10.There is good reason for suspicion that the car makers in Canada will not meet their promise to deliver 5.3 Mt CO2e even though they intended to do it without moving a muscle, so to speak. This is because they must first of all get the Federal government to agree to give them credit for everything that has happened to cars, which normally would be politically assured.
As Canadian federal politics is now developing that could become a very unpopular move for a government heading into an election before 2010. We do not know what the individual car makers have been doing, and it may be their industry association does not either, and never will. If the agreement becomes no longer a useful publicity tool, the car makers will simply drop it, behind a screen of lies about how the government has not been reasonable. Then our government will have no agreement, no progress that is provable, no data, no data bank for the past 10 years from industry, and no knowledge of what each company has been doing.
Of course it could be that the government has been collecting data all this time. One imagines federal inspectors secreting this or that car and measuring the tail pipe product. But it is pretty hard to get industry or company wide averages out of that. So it may be the case that the sooner the government tells the car makers to take their agreement and shove it, the better.
11. We can see some of the double dealing we can expect from the car makers in a few items already. For example, the Tier 2 regulations coming up in the US. Will the car makers get credit for those, say in nitrous oxides? One industry statement is referred to in the Lutsey study to the effect that there is "no double billing for NOx" but in a different statement it is set out that the Canadian auto industry expects to be credited with GHG emissions reductions for their actions in response to the Tier 2 standards ( in this case established for pollutant criteria control).
12. The same problem will surely come up with respect to fuel substitution such as blending ethanol in gasoline. A government official has stated that this is outside the Voluntary agreement but that is probably because the government has its own program to promote ethanol, so it would not want to see any improvement credited to two different programs. But who is ready to bet that the car makers will not claim it, and have already figured on a credit for it. The California study estimates that ethanol will reduce emissions by 0.68% in one year, 2010, and this is about 12.8% of the total of 5.3 Mt CO2e the car makers have promised.
13. And there are wild cards that the car makers will surely make a fuss about. Real world driving is not the same a lab conditions tests, and so standards need to allow for reality. There is plenty to argue about here. The Voluntary agreement assumes a gap of 20% but each new study seem to be widening the gap. Will our government throw up their hands when the car makers go off into a long argument about that.This item may amount to as much as 1.12% of the reduction (21.2% of the total 5.3 Mt CO2e) car makers promise.
14. It has turned out that tire pressure has a role in emission reduction and drivers need to be educated about that (apparently it could amount to as much as 0.5% of on road fuel use. The car makers in Canada have already announced they will be claiming for that. Can we doubt they will put in a claim for the One Tonne Challenge (a program since abandoned by the new Conservative government in its determination to get rid of whatever the last government was doing), and other driver education programs. But how can car makers claim a credit for an improvement in emission reduction associated with a government mounted consumer education program? They will.
15. So we can see, following the detailed account in the California university study, the car makers can meet the promise of 5.3 Mt CO2e if they are credited with everything that has reduced emissions, whether it was the result of outdated reference case projections from 1999, or involved technologies already in use when the Voluntary agreement was signed, whether it was already set to occur due to previous agreements or would occur regardless of the Voluntary agreement (Tier 2,on road real life driving adjustments, harmonized fuel consumption with USA, ethanol adjustment) or whether the result of regulations made for reasons other than climate change such as Tier 2 for specific pollutants and tire monitoring programs for safety reasons, even driver education.
There is plenty for government to resist there in the Government-Industry committee set up by the Voluntary Agreement to "adjust" the claims of the car makers to ensure "fairness". It is hard to see even the pro-business Harper regime going for all of it, but where are we if they do? And how will we know what they are about to do until after they have done it and put out the usual joint statement.
16. If the industry obtains credits, as described in the California study, since the Government-industry group that is supposed to be functioning under the Voluntary agreement has not published anything, then the result can be a little greater that 5.3 Mt CO2e. The industry will make its "contribution". The Lutsey study also considers a more strict definition for the car makers to match. This one would be based on new emission reductions that did not include already established programs as GHG reduction initiatives. In other words this program would not credit the already established vehicle fuel and technology trends. In this case the target of 5.3 Mt CO2e reduction by 2010 is not met.
17. The conclusions of the California study are sobering:
"The question arises as to whether the intent of the MOU is to witness a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction or to actually be responsible for causing a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction. It is apparently possible for the MOU agreement to be met with little or no impact on GHG emissions from Canada's fleet. If the MOU oversight committee decides to credit each of the mechanisms discussed, the primary role of the Canada GHG MOU would be to simply re-label a series of already-established programs as a GHG reduction initiative. "
Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement Lutsey U of Cal (Davis) 2006 at p.31
18. For the reasons set out Gramps concludes that the industry will try to push the government into accepting industry credit that makes the Agreement a mockery. Whether it succeeds or fails depends on public pressure on the issue of accountability. Either way, we have lost a lot of time. The government should be urged to proclaim the 1976 Regulatory legislation, move quickly to establish the equivalent of Tier 2 as a Regulatory goal to be met in tandem with the progress of the California standards (assuming court challenges to that program fail) and move on to rapid implementation.
August 28,2007
Conclusion of the post Promises, Promises on Auto Emissions
Gramps
Gramps
THE URBAN BULLY
Part 3
Another approach that works is to show that a bully who claims some special knowledge or experience does not know what he is talking about. If this can be brought forward with really simple, short and plain speech, it can be effective. If it can be further refined and expressed as comedy the bully can be undressed in public as surely as a goalie who goes to the left then is faked to the right (to the endless delight of pretty well everyone except the goalie's family). This requires skill and luck but happily a genuine and persistent research effort can substitute for these to some extent. But be sure to have your material reviewed by several knowledgeable people and check your facts two, three times. Try to avoid errors like spelling mistakes. Bullies are usually pretty thin on the ground even about subjects they pretend to be well versed in, and they tend to leave off a research effort as soon as they find something they can use to assault victims with, so they tend to be relentless on common and small stuff like spelling where they feel sure of their ground or can use a computer device like spell check. The essential thing is to realize that a bully wants to bully and does not really care about getting at the truth of an issue and so will not dare to press too far into areas requiring detailed knowledge of a subject.
Some hints for dealing with bullies in the workplace.
Identify that you really are dealing with a bully. This may require enough restraint to wait for the second attack, especially if you have an urge to deliver an instant counter attack.
An immediate response may be to brace the bully with an angry reply in words (but not in deeds since that will get you fired from the workplace). This is like responding with a five-second stare. It is not much much but it will cause the bully to start wondering if it has really picked a safe target. This is all that is useful in the way of a direct answer.
Counter-attack the audience. Go up to the first person near you and ask: "Do you support bullying of employees here?" They will not say yes, and neither will anyone else though someone may say you are making a big deal out of nothing. But that can only come from an even lower form of life: the Common Urban Bully Stooge, a creature even more cowardly than a bully. Just say"boo" and they will go away.
You can follow up with a declaration that you will file a grievance since this will not stop unless action is taken and you have been assured by the crew that bullying is not the policy. Then do it, exactly, and steady yourself to push the procedure all the way. You will succeed but understand that this is what the "fight" of this particular fight is all about. Hold your ground, your tongue, and your temper. If you are in a non union shop, type a notice and put it on the employee notice board or the safety board stating that you have been harassed by a named person and have written to management to ask that they enforce their harassment policy; and if they do not have such a policy you will go to Human Rights (Provincial Agency). If your note is removed (it will be) put it up again, and repeat as required. Ignore nasty little asides by low level management about how we all have to get along here, or that you are not liked for your efforts and are risking your job, or the bully is really a good old boy, and so on. Nobody really likes the bully, not even his stooges,so hold steady, do not respond to distractions, say absolutely nothing to the bully and you will probably succeed after some pretty miserable shifts. Avoid at all costs any important errors in your own job. Never attack the management directly unless the bully is one of them. The company cannot be seen to defend or support bullying, and that is the lever you must push on. Always remember that a bully injures production or morale or both in any plant and most managers know that intuitively.
Part 4 to follow
Another approach that works is to show that a bully who claims some special knowledge or experience does not know what he is talking about. If this can be brought forward with really simple, short and plain speech, it can be effective. If it can be further refined and expressed as comedy the bully can be undressed in public as surely as a goalie who goes to the left then is faked to the right (to the endless delight of pretty well everyone except the goalie's family). This requires skill and luck but happily a genuine and persistent research effort can substitute for these to some extent. But be sure to have your material reviewed by several knowledgeable people and check your facts two, three times. Try to avoid errors like spelling mistakes. Bullies are usually pretty thin on the ground even about subjects they pretend to be well versed in, and they tend to leave off a research effort as soon as they find something they can use to assault victims with, so they tend to be relentless on common and small stuff like spelling where they feel sure of their ground or can use a computer device like spell check. The essential thing is to realize that a bully wants to bully and does not really care about getting at the truth of an issue and so will not dare to press too far into areas requiring detailed knowledge of a subject.
Some hints for dealing with bullies in the workplace.
Identify that you really are dealing with a bully. This may require enough restraint to wait for the second attack, especially if you have an urge to deliver an instant counter attack.
An immediate response may be to brace the bully with an angry reply in words (but not in deeds since that will get you fired from the workplace). This is like responding with a five-second stare. It is not much much but it will cause the bully to start wondering if it has really picked a safe target. This is all that is useful in the way of a direct answer.
Counter-attack the audience. Go up to the first person near you and ask: "Do you support bullying of employees here?" They will not say yes, and neither will anyone else though someone may say you are making a big deal out of nothing. But that can only come from an even lower form of life: the Common Urban Bully Stooge, a creature even more cowardly than a bully. Just say"boo" and they will go away.
You can follow up with a declaration that you will file a grievance since this will not stop unless action is taken and you have been assured by the crew that bullying is not the policy. Then do it, exactly, and steady yourself to push the procedure all the way. You will succeed but understand that this is what the "fight" of this particular fight is all about. Hold your ground, your tongue, and your temper. If you are in a non union shop, type a notice and put it on the employee notice board or the safety board stating that you have been harassed by a named person and have written to management to ask that they enforce their harassment policy; and if they do not have such a policy you will go to Human Rights (Provincial Agency). If your note is removed (it will be) put it up again, and repeat as required. Ignore nasty little asides by low level management about how we all have to get along here, or that you are not liked for your efforts and are risking your job, or the bully is really a good old boy, and so on. Nobody really likes the bully, not even his stooges,so hold steady, do not respond to distractions, say absolutely nothing to the bully and you will probably succeed after some pretty miserable shifts. Avoid at all costs any important errors in your own job. Never attack the management directly unless the bully is one of them. The company cannot be seen to defend or support bullying, and that is the lever you must push on. Always remember that a bully injures production or morale or both in any plant and most managers know that intuitively.
Part 4 to follow
Saturday, August 25, 2007
PROMISES PROMISES
AUTO EMISSIONS FACTS AND FANTASIES
Part 2 of 4 25/08/07
While this history has unfolded in the US in Çanada we were following along, tied to their industries and limited by their politics, as we chose the voluntary route.The Act that we had passed in 1976 languished unproclaimed and even today could well be the starting point for genuine regulation. We just need a government that will proclaim it, order the car companies to publish their data, compel standards,and move to enforce them.
Today there is no truly native Canadian car company to be found in the CVMA though most of the European and all the American large car firms are. The government had developed two massive and detailed studies of the industry by the end of 1999 and these were used to develop a voluntary standard. The period to be covered by the plan was 2000 to 2010, but since the agreement was not actually signed till the Spring of 2005 and no actual improvements were due till late 2007, and no actual facts about any real change or improvement have even been claimed to date, the plan has not had a good start, despite the blustering of the car companies web page which goes on about how things are "well in hand" whatever that means.
In the auto industry as the car has evolved using the internal combustion engine we have a very large number of moving parts and an extremely inefficient use of gasoline. With each model year there are improvements, and since there have been a small number of large manufacturers, there has tended to be a grand procession of tiny steps, with little real change each year, but a great deal of publicity suggesting miracles are being delivered. This way the car makers make the most money, at minimum risk. Most of the changes are purely cosmetic, some are for safety reasons, some relate to incorporating new subsystems to the car, and those that are essential to the problem of engine efficiency tend to require a choice between power and efficiency. More of one is less of the other. Once the big boost of the oil shock had been delivered from 1973 forward to 1985, the car makers happily moved away from efficiency toward power, and they have never looked back. The whole system of small changes bumps along to keep the customer happy with new features each year, there is no cut throat competition. It is really a sort of socialism for the car makers, and it has a very bad effect on attempts to reduce tail pipe emissions.
In result over a period of 5 years we see a very gradual improvement in fuel/ mileage but it is swallowed in the much worse performance of the ever more popular SUV. In total, fuel mileage goes down year after year, and this is made worse by the trade off between power and efficiency. Plainly, the car makers have shown for 20 years that they will not deliver on fuel efficiency unless they are compelled to.
In 2005 when the government and the car makers finally produced an agreement to stretch to 2010 the manufactures say they agreed to "commit" to obtain a "reduction" of 5.3 million tonnes CO2 equivalent of tail pipe emissions by 2010. It is plain that the members of the CVMA (Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc.) agreed to do this through their association, without any one company undertaking to do anything specific or in any time frame. Of course. the agreement was not even a legal instrument and was totally voluntary anyway. But it seems to be the case that neither the government or anyone outside the car makers and their association has any idea what any of them has done, what are the tail pipe facts for any company and how, if at all, that has changed since 1999 or since April 2005. The agreement and later two so called Progress Reports that have been produced have long lists of specific technical features that each company proposes. But there is no statement to be found if any of these ,and which ones, have actually been done, or what effect any of them had. In Europe it has been a problem to get the car companies there to produce any data on any of their operations, so it would be no surprise to see that as a problem here. The two Progress Reports are just ad copy that contain many, many repeats of the claim that they will reduce emissions by 5.3 Mt CO2e, but very little else. There is no data on what their emissions were at 2005, what they are now, how each company has changed, if at all, or how they are in fact progressing towards the goal.
When the Auditor General of Canada produced a report at September of 2006 setting out what voluntary agreements should contain if they are to be of any use at all, that was before the car makers came out with their second Progress Report so they could not simply ignore the AG. But what they said was that they were not going to do anything now and they would consider that for their final report. Apparently then we shall see no third party monitoring, no fixed standards, no step by step schedule, no before, during, and after data, no tests, no real controls at all. We know the car makers have been large scale liars about every feature of their vehicles for decades and a huge campaign was necessary to bring in elementary safety features to reduce the carnage on the roads. Now the government has permitted this crowd of large scale proven liars to say "trust us" when there is absolutely no reason to do so based on their past record. True to form they now seek to simply ignore the Auditor General of Canada.
One of the most curious features of this agreement of April 2005 between the Federal Government and the CVMA car makers is the stated reduction to be achieved of 5.3 Mt CO2e. Since the whole agreement has a lot of vagueness to it, it was only signed when its originally expected period of operation was more than half over, and the car makers do not have any target they must meet, why the apparent certainty of such a figure? Why 5.3, why not 3 or 5 or 8?
We should mention that the tail pipe produces many gases, 96% of them CO2 but quite a number of others including some toxics. The scientists have worked out a compound number to take into account the main ones, and it is based on values for some of the minor gases at much more than one to one. For example a tonne of Nitrous Oxides is taken at 21 compared to 1 of CO2 and a tonne of Volatile Organics at 310 times one of CO2. So the single number of 5.3 Mt COt2 is supposed to represent all of what comes out the tail pipe.
Some of the improvements that the manufacturers had already done by 2005 would improve particular emissions but it seems that all of them are long since well known in the industry. In California, a study was produced on the Canadian voluntary plan that described it as an agreement to witness the improvements rather than one to perform them since most or all of the items listed for each of the car companies were things that were done already or would be done regardless of the Agreement. The author of the study was able to estimate to a fine level of detail how much CO2 emissions would be reduced with each one. He showed that if the car makers took credit as reduction for all these planned improvements they could easily make 5.3 tonnes reduction by 2010, but if they could not successfully claim them all they would not be able to. No such detail at all is to be found in the publications that are available for the MOU. What credit will be claimed and what will be agreed is also totally vague as it seems all Canada waits (it is now August of 2007 on an agreement evolved to deal with 1999 to 2010 though signed in 2005) to see what the car makers will claim and what the Federal Government will agree to in some form of committee. One could safely predict the car makers will demand all of them, and the government will agree.
As to the overall figure it turns out that when one examines the studies produced by the Federal government and available to the car makers in 1999, one can see the number of CO2 equivalent levels for the transport sector of the economy, and the car makers share of that for their fleets of cars, in 1999, and what it was expected to grow to by 2010. If one just deducts 1999 from what was expected in 2010 one will not get anywhere near the reductions claimed of 5.3. The gap is much wider than that. But if one takes the amounts that can be expected to reduce emissions based on the lists of items planned by the car makers, one gets a number very close to the 5.3. Such estimates can be done by review of the California university study of the Canadian voluntary agreement, which has detailed estimates for every planned measure. So it seems the car makers were not guided to reduce their share of emissions by deducting any figure from what the government expected to see transport emissions rise to by 2010. They just added up what they planned to do in the normal development of their products without any consideration at all of national concerns and used that figure as what they would contribute to emission reduction.
The trouble is that is essentially no real reduction at all The car makers have just listed what they would do if there was no MOU agreement at 2005 at all. And by getting government to negotiate this agreement, they have given the appearance of contributing to climate control when they intend nothing of the kind. The government has been taken, good and proper. The government has not served the nation well at all in this matter.
As well we see when we follow the publications in the CVMA web page, and the Progress
Reports, and the government studies at the beginning, that the car makers have got the government to get involved in great long detailed discussions that are not helpful to emission control. They are useful to the car makers who want to talk about highly graduated schedules narrowly differentiating each of their cars, and extremely detailed consideration of what their plans are to attract and please their customers. The government interest should not be in this area, but in determining what can be done and setting standards to get it done as soon as possible. The MOU is a total failure in this regard.
Again, the government has been conned. There is a great amount of talk in the MOU and its surrounding studies and web page discussion about customer preference and choice, which leads to softening of the standard sought and gradually the conversation, so to speak, is moved to the "consumer choice" area where the car makers want it to be, instead of in the area of achieving regulation that it urgently required. Reducing CO2 emissions gradually is replaced by producing and selling more cars and promoting the car culture. The goal should be to reduce the car culture.
The MOU is against the best interests of Canada, and the car makers have enlisted the government to promote their cause. As one result of this unhappy tale Canada is failing badly in emission standards, being only a little better than the US which is at about 250 where Canada is 220. The EU and Japan are in the area of 150, on a normalized standard created by the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. These last two are now aiming at severe further reductions. And in Canada we cannot even be very confident that the standards we think we have are operational since it is not clear that our government knows what the car makers are individually producing.
Part 3 to follow
Part 2 of 4 25/08/07
While this history has unfolded in the US in Çanada we were following along, tied to their industries and limited by their politics, as we chose the voluntary route.The Act that we had passed in 1976 languished unproclaimed and even today could well be the starting point for genuine regulation. We just need a government that will proclaim it, order the car companies to publish their data, compel standards,and move to enforce them.
Today there is no truly native Canadian car company to be found in the CVMA though most of the European and all the American large car firms are. The government had developed two massive and detailed studies of the industry by the end of 1999 and these were used to develop a voluntary standard. The period to be covered by the plan was 2000 to 2010, but since the agreement was not actually signed till the Spring of 2005 and no actual improvements were due till late 2007, and no actual facts about any real change or improvement have even been claimed to date, the plan has not had a good start, despite the blustering of the car companies web page which goes on about how things are "well in hand" whatever that means.
In the auto industry as the car has evolved using the internal combustion engine we have a very large number of moving parts and an extremely inefficient use of gasoline. With each model year there are improvements, and since there have been a small number of large manufacturers, there has tended to be a grand procession of tiny steps, with little real change each year, but a great deal of publicity suggesting miracles are being delivered. This way the car makers make the most money, at minimum risk. Most of the changes are purely cosmetic, some are for safety reasons, some relate to incorporating new subsystems to the car, and those that are essential to the problem of engine efficiency tend to require a choice between power and efficiency. More of one is less of the other. Once the big boost of the oil shock had been delivered from 1973 forward to 1985, the car makers happily moved away from efficiency toward power, and they have never looked back. The whole system of small changes bumps along to keep the customer happy with new features each year, there is no cut throat competition. It is really a sort of socialism for the car makers, and it has a very bad effect on attempts to reduce tail pipe emissions.
In result over a period of 5 years we see a very gradual improvement in fuel/ mileage but it is swallowed in the much worse performance of the ever more popular SUV. In total, fuel mileage goes down year after year, and this is made worse by the trade off between power and efficiency. Plainly, the car makers have shown for 20 years that they will not deliver on fuel efficiency unless they are compelled to.
In 2005 when the government and the car makers finally produced an agreement to stretch to 2010 the manufactures say they agreed to "commit" to obtain a "reduction" of 5.3 million tonnes CO2 equivalent of tail pipe emissions by 2010. It is plain that the members of the CVMA (Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc.) agreed to do this through their association, without any one company undertaking to do anything specific or in any time frame. Of course. the agreement was not even a legal instrument and was totally voluntary anyway. But it seems to be the case that neither the government or anyone outside the car makers and their association has any idea what any of them has done, what are the tail pipe facts for any company and how, if at all, that has changed since 1999 or since April 2005. The agreement and later two so called Progress Reports that have been produced have long lists of specific technical features that each company proposes. But there is no statement to be found if any of these ,and which ones, have actually been done, or what effect any of them had. In Europe it has been a problem to get the car companies there to produce any data on any of their operations, so it would be no surprise to see that as a problem here. The two Progress Reports are just ad copy that contain many, many repeats of the claim that they will reduce emissions by 5.3 Mt CO2e, but very little else. There is no data on what their emissions were at 2005, what they are now, how each company has changed, if at all, or how they are in fact progressing towards the goal.
When the Auditor General of Canada produced a report at September of 2006 setting out what voluntary agreements should contain if they are to be of any use at all, that was before the car makers came out with their second Progress Report so they could not simply ignore the AG. But what they said was that they were not going to do anything now and they would consider that for their final report. Apparently then we shall see no third party monitoring, no fixed standards, no step by step schedule, no before, during, and after data, no tests, no real controls at all. We know the car makers have been large scale liars about every feature of their vehicles for decades and a huge campaign was necessary to bring in elementary safety features to reduce the carnage on the roads. Now the government has permitted this crowd of large scale proven liars to say "trust us" when there is absolutely no reason to do so based on their past record. True to form they now seek to simply ignore the Auditor General of Canada.
One of the most curious features of this agreement of April 2005 between the Federal Government and the CVMA car makers is the stated reduction to be achieved of 5.3 Mt CO2e. Since the whole agreement has a lot of vagueness to it, it was only signed when its originally expected period of operation was more than half over, and the car makers do not have any target they must meet, why the apparent certainty of such a figure? Why 5.3, why not 3 or 5 or 8?
We should mention that the tail pipe produces many gases, 96% of them CO2 but quite a number of others including some toxics. The scientists have worked out a compound number to take into account the main ones, and it is based on values for some of the minor gases at much more than one to one. For example a tonne of Nitrous Oxides is taken at 21 compared to 1 of CO2 and a tonne of Volatile Organics at 310 times one of CO2. So the single number of 5.3 Mt COt2 is supposed to represent all of what comes out the tail pipe.
Some of the improvements that the manufacturers had already done by 2005 would improve particular emissions but it seems that all of them are long since well known in the industry. In California, a study was produced on the Canadian voluntary plan that described it as an agreement to witness the improvements rather than one to perform them since most or all of the items listed for each of the car companies were things that were done already or would be done regardless of the Agreement. The author of the study was able to estimate to a fine level of detail how much CO2 emissions would be reduced with each one. He showed that if the car makers took credit as reduction for all these planned improvements they could easily make 5.3 tonnes reduction by 2010, but if they could not successfully claim them all they would not be able to. No such detail at all is to be found in the publications that are available for the MOU. What credit will be claimed and what will be agreed is also totally vague as it seems all Canada waits (it is now August of 2007 on an agreement evolved to deal with 1999 to 2010 though signed in 2005) to see what the car makers will claim and what the Federal Government will agree to in some form of committee. One could safely predict the car makers will demand all of them, and the government will agree.
As to the overall figure it turns out that when one examines the studies produced by the Federal government and available to the car makers in 1999, one can see the number of CO2 equivalent levels for the transport sector of the economy, and the car makers share of that for their fleets of cars, in 1999, and what it was expected to grow to by 2010. If one just deducts 1999 from what was expected in 2010 one will not get anywhere near the reductions claimed of 5.3. The gap is much wider than that. But if one takes the amounts that can be expected to reduce emissions based on the lists of items planned by the car makers, one gets a number very close to the 5.3. Such estimates can be done by review of the California university study of the Canadian voluntary agreement, which has detailed estimates for every planned measure. So it seems the car makers were not guided to reduce their share of emissions by deducting any figure from what the government expected to see transport emissions rise to by 2010. They just added up what they planned to do in the normal development of their products without any consideration at all of national concerns and used that figure as what they would contribute to emission reduction.
The trouble is that is essentially no real reduction at all The car makers have just listed what they would do if there was no MOU agreement at 2005 at all. And by getting government to negotiate this agreement, they have given the appearance of contributing to climate control when they intend nothing of the kind. The government has been taken, good and proper. The government has not served the nation well at all in this matter.
As well we see when we follow the publications in the CVMA web page, and the Progress
Reports, and the government studies at the beginning, that the car makers have got the government to get involved in great long detailed discussions that are not helpful to emission control. They are useful to the car makers who want to talk about highly graduated schedules narrowly differentiating each of their cars, and extremely detailed consideration of what their plans are to attract and please their customers. The government interest should not be in this area, but in determining what can be done and setting standards to get it done as soon as possible. The MOU is a total failure in this regard.
Again, the government has been conned. There is a great amount of talk in the MOU and its surrounding studies and web page discussion about customer preference and choice, which leads to softening of the standard sought and gradually the conversation, so to speak, is moved to the "consumer choice" area where the car makers want it to be, instead of in the area of achieving regulation that it urgently required. Reducing CO2 emissions gradually is replaced by producing and selling more cars and promoting the car culture. The goal should be to reduce the car culture.
The MOU is against the best interests of Canada, and the car makers have enlisted the government to promote their cause. As one result of this unhappy tale Canada is failing badly in emission standards, being only a little better than the US which is at about 250 where Canada is 220. The EU and Japan are in the area of 150, on a normalized standard created by the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. These last two are now aiming at severe further reductions. And in Canada we cannot even be very confident that the standards we think we have are operational since it is not clear that our government knows what the car makers are individually producing.
Part 3 to follow
THE URBAN BULLY
PART NO 2 OF 6
Dealing with the Common Urban Bully is not all that difficult, but it does take work.
The best thing is to take away its audience, in the case of writing, or to threaten to do that, especially if the audience is fictional. So a writer who speaks of being read by millions can be dealt with by reference to any study showing the numbers of people who actually read any particular item or type of item in a publication. Size of the publication in press runs, or volume of a book run can be easily obtained.
How many persons are likely to read anything that appears on, say, the opinion page of a newspaper, set against the publication numbers of the paper. Do you read them, or editorials, much? Is the bully really pretending that its tiny bull horn is the same as that of the publication, where the owner of a publication chooses to let the bully give out a little squeak from time to time. One can ask the bully if he believes that more people read his offerings than say,the weather report, reports of a junior hockey game, the horoscope. He won't answer because common knowledge blows his claim. He knows further discussion on this theme will get round to the question of just why he makes such a claim and what it has to do with the value of what he does.
However, the fact is that the true audience of the bully who writes regularly for publications like newspapers is not the number of papers sold, or the assumed readership, but the editors. And this audience, numbering in the dozens to a few hundred at the most, and not in millions, is not necessarily interested in truth or the quality of writing. This can be seen by anyone who takes the trouble to read articles listing what prices are offered, and publication rights demanded by newspaper editors who have been solicited to pick up the offerings of self syndicated writers scrounging for spots to dump their copy.
The newspaper is just a retail ad flyer with features thrown in to catch the attention of possible purchasers. Editors will want to please the advertisers, mainly, and so they will favor right wing zealots whose writing caters to the cave dwelling and intensely parochial mentality that dominates the population of businessmen. Editors will choose "think pieces" or "color" as they like to say, that will reassure their advertisers that the paper really does belong in the cave with the "right thinking people." Editors select material for publications that are in the business of selling advertisements, and their first test will be whether their customers (not readers) will like it. The editors are most comfortable with sports page writing where a lot of violent language is used to dress up pretty dull game reports and fake controversies are endlessly raked over in Dick and Jane language.
If you doubt this just ask yourself why editors would choose op ed pieces that would offend their customers, if they want to sell papers. Consider how they use the word "color" in characterizing writing and whether that usage fits with any respect at all for literary values.
Beyond the momentary fun of throwing a few tomatoes at a bully, it is much more productive to attack the bully's audience instead of the bully. Letters can go to whoever buys his product or pays his wage, attacking the supporter as being out of step. The dwindling number of climate skeptics, for instance, who do not believe there is global warming or have a vested interest in saying so, are beginning to regard each other in a wary and furtive way as they sit around the table of their right wing interest groups. Who will be next to cut and run? Who will turn on a dime, as bullies so easily do, and use his knowledge of his colleagues faults to attack them? Why is everyone repeatedly glancing at the door marked exit? The general population has been thoroughly frightened by extreme weather events so that even though it has been dumbed down by the decades of anti-intellectual assaults from the writing bullies of the establishment it may be capable of turning on them very quickly. Telling the bully or his patron that they are out of step, with details, will send ice water through the veins of the bully, and will surely cause the patron to raise its head from the trough and re-appraise the situation.
What is suggested here is that even though it may be pleasurable to throw clever or carefully developed remarks at a bully, it not really useful to answer one directly. Go for the patron. If the bully feels safe in his location, among his supporters, with friendly greetings as he comes into his office or group, he will not be deterred by any number of merely verbal counter attacks on himself, no matter how untrue or venomous his material. That will all be like water off a duck's back. The squawking of victims may even entertain the bully's audience affording the bully a chance to really luxuriate in a perfect riot of scornful abuse.
But if the audience or patron has not been tested before, it may very well recoil under attack, and that will terrify the bully in a way that is truly astonishing to see. The bully will suddenly turn on a dime, it will plead that if the patron (usually an editor) will just tell it who is to be attacked the bully will do it right now, even if the new target was the subject of praise yesterday. The bully is not encumbered by ethics or a conscience. And a display of this startling flexibility by the bully will lower him a lot in the eyes of the patron or editor who will start looking for a writer made of sterner stuff.
Part 3 to follow
Dealing with the Common Urban Bully is not all that difficult, but it does take work.
The best thing is to take away its audience, in the case of writing, or to threaten to do that, especially if the audience is fictional. So a writer who speaks of being read by millions can be dealt with by reference to any study showing the numbers of people who actually read any particular item or type of item in a publication. Size of the publication in press runs, or volume of a book run can be easily obtained.
How many persons are likely to read anything that appears on, say, the opinion page of a newspaper, set against the publication numbers of the paper. Do you read them, or editorials, much? Is the bully really pretending that its tiny bull horn is the same as that of the publication, where the owner of a publication chooses to let the bully give out a little squeak from time to time. One can ask the bully if he believes that more people read his offerings than say,the weather report, reports of a junior hockey game, the horoscope. He won't answer because common knowledge blows his claim. He knows further discussion on this theme will get round to the question of just why he makes such a claim and what it has to do with the value of what he does.
However, the fact is that the true audience of the bully who writes regularly for publications like newspapers is not the number of papers sold, or the assumed readership, but the editors. And this audience, numbering in the dozens to a few hundred at the most, and not in millions, is not necessarily interested in truth or the quality of writing. This can be seen by anyone who takes the trouble to read articles listing what prices are offered, and publication rights demanded by newspaper editors who have been solicited to pick up the offerings of self syndicated writers scrounging for spots to dump their copy.
The newspaper is just a retail ad flyer with features thrown in to catch the attention of possible purchasers. Editors will want to please the advertisers, mainly, and so they will favor right wing zealots whose writing caters to the cave dwelling and intensely parochial mentality that dominates the population of businessmen. Editors will choose "think pieces" or "color" as they like to say, that will reassure their advertisers that the paper really does belong in the cave with the "right thinking people." Editors select material for publications that are in the business of selling advertisements, and their first test will be whether their customers (not readers) will like it. The editors are most comfortable with sports page writing where a lot of violent language is used to dress up pretty dull game reports and fake controversies are endlessly raked over in Dick and Jane language.
If you doubt this just ask yourself why editors would choose op ed pieces that would offend their customers, if they want to sell papers. Consider how they use the word "color" in characterizing writing and whether that usage fits with any respect at all for literary values.
Beyond the momentary fun of throwing a few tomatoes at a bully, it is much more productive to attack the bully's audience instead of the bully. Letters can go to whoever buys his product or pays his wage, attacking the supporter as being out of step. The dwindling number of climate skeptics, for instance, who do not believe there is global warming or have a vested interest in saying so, are beginning to regard each other in a wary and furtive way as they sit around the table of their right wing interest groups. Who will be next to cut and run? Who will turn on a dime, as bullies so easily do, and use his knowledge of his colleagues faults to attack them? Why is everyone repeatedly glancing at the door marked exit? The general population has been thoroughly frightened by extreme weather events so that even though it has been dumbed down by the decades of anti-intellectual assaults from the writing bullies of the establishment it may be capable of turning on them very quickly. Telling the bully or his patron that they are out of step, with details, will send ice water through the veins of the bully, and will surely cause the patron to raise its head from the trough and re-appraise the situation.
What is suggested here is that even though it may be pleasurable to throw clever or carefully developed remarks at a bully, it not really useful to answer one directly. Go for the patron. If the bully feels safe in his location, among his supporters, with friendly greetings as he comes into his office or group, he will not be deterred by any number of merely verbal counter attacks on himself, no matter how untrue or venomous his material. That will all be like water off a duck's back. The squawking of victims may even entertain the bully's audience affording the bully a chance to really luxuriate in a perfect riot of scornful abuse.
But if the audience or patron has not been tested before, it may very well recoil under attack, and that will terrify the bully in a way that is truly astonishing to see. The bully will suddenly turn on a dime, it will plead that if the patron (usually an editor) will just tell it who is to be attacked the bully will do it right now, even if the new target was the subject of praise yesterday. The bully is not encumbered by ethics or a conscience. And a display of this startling flexibility by the bully will lower him a lot in the eyes of the patron or editor who will start looking for a writer made of sterner stuff.
Part 3 to follow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)