Science good, markets bad
Martin Nowak, Professor of Mathematics and Biology at Harvard University, thinks George Orwell's Big Brother was on to something. According to Professor Nowak, "[T]he knowledge that our behaviour is being observed -or that it may be observed -could provide policymakers with new leverage to deal with climate change."
In his book SuperCooperators, written with Roger Highfield, Prof. Nowak offers specific examples: "Energy costs of individual households could, for example, be published by local newspapers. Companies could be ranked according to their emissions and their investments in climate protection. Stickers [on gas guzzlers] could be used to mark out the polluting vehicles with pitiful efficiency."
What we need is a system like Cuba 's neighbourhood Committees for the Defence of the Revolution. "Exposing who on your block or in your office uses most energy might be a good incentive for everyone to reduce their carbon footprint."
Prof. Nowak suggests that telescreen ecofascism should be extended beyond Earth Hour and "Do Not Buy" campaigns. "We need detailed information on the degree to which people, companies, or countries squander precious resources," he writes. "We need to know the true environmental cost of everyday items, from a boiler to a car, so that we can build it into the price tag."
But it wouldn't all be Invasion of the Body Snatchers-style finger pointing and bureaucratic price control. Prof. Nowak suggests people might be allowed to display green flags if they buy expensive "alternative" energy. Given "feed-in tariffs," every user of electricity in Ontario would be able to raise the green standard of "co-operation" on their dandelion-infested front lawns.
The ideas presented in this book alternate between the stunningly naïve and the outright horrifying. What is most scary is that Prof. Nowak believes they are based on "science." His principal climate "mentor" is Bob May, who, as the U.K. government's chief scientific advisor, then head of the Royal Society, provided a model of commitment above objectivity. Lord May once famously declared that the debate over climate was "over." Last year, several dozen members of the Royal Society revolted at how the famous institution had -significantly thanks to Lord May -been used as a political instrument.
Yet another of Prof. Nowak's intellectual inspirations is Garrett "Tragedy of the Commons" Hardin, who believed that allowing humans "the freedom to breed" was "intolerable." Mr. Hardin's solution to the intractable problems manufactured by his fevered brain was a "fundamental extension of morality." However, like most moralists, Mr. Hardin failed to examine where his own sense of morality might have originated, and how it might possibly lead him astray. The key point about the evolution of morality -as Prof. Nowak notes without following the thought through to its problematic conclusions -is that its adaptive function lay in "group selection." The dark side of that evolution was that it involves the demonization of the "out group: " those, say, who dare to express skepticism about catastrophic climate change. It is worth remembering that the greatest examples of moralism are genocide and suicide bombing.
In Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift parodied the Royal Society of his day in the floating island of Laputa, which was inhabited by distracted boffins who were not merely impractical but tyrannical too, given to raining terror on their subjects below. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was another satirical take on the dangerous pretensions of scientists to create "a better world" by fiddling with human nature.
As a mathematician, Prof. Nowak's particular Laputan conceit is that human nature (before it is upgraded) is to be discovered in increasingly sophisticated computer programs rather than by examining the real thing. He is an undoubtedly brilliant man who has used mathematical modelling to develop crucial insights into areas such as cancer treatment, but he makes quite unjustified leaps from the study of ants, and of simplistic laboratory games, to the suggestion that humans "must" co-operate -that is, take orders -at a global level because of an alleged existential threat.
Although his book is about co-operation, it is no coincidence that Prof. Nowak makes only passing reference to the greatest example of systemic human co-operation in history, the extended order of economic markets. Insofar as he does mention it, it is to misconstrue and condemn it -all too typically and tediously -as a force for resource exhaustion and unsustainable growth.
Before he suggests that the UN start masterminding global economic development, he might at least look at Climategate, Glaciergate and now Mass Migrationgate. We might also note the frightening fact that his co-author is the editor of the New Scientist, the world's most popular science and technology magazine.
Prof. Nowak quotes evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith as saying that "an ounce of algebra is worth a ton of verbal argument." Perhaps, but where is the formula for, say, Rajendra Pachauri, the arrogant careerist head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Professor Nowak confirms how the best-credentialled of scientists can be dangerously ignorant and naïve in the policy arena. He suggests that "A realignment of the internal compass of millions of individual minds can do much to augment government policies."
But wasn't this once called the creation of the "New Soviet Man?"
McGuinty's secret deal
In 2008, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty signed a new four-year contract with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), the province's largest. Mr. McGuinty and his finance minister, Dwight Duncan, touted the new agreement as a success for Ontario and a product of tough bargaining, noting that the 2% annual raise was less than the union had sought. The government then used the deal with OPSEU as a template for other, similarly limited, pay boosts for other unions.
But as was revealed this week after a hearing by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the government also signed a secret, second deal with OPSEU, promising the union an extra percentage point raise for 2012, after the next provincial election was safely over. The public was not informed of this separate arrangement; indeed, the government wanted it to be remain hidden, on the grounds that Ontario would have a harder time negotiating with other unions if it were to become public.
But clearly, the government already has trouble enough on that front. As the OPSEU agreement demonstrates, neither Mr. McGuinty nor Mr. Duncan were willing to stand up to organized labour, even at a time of crisis. Instead they mouthed their determination to get tough while simultaneously doing the opposite.
Since being elected in 2003, Ontario's Liberal government has showered the province's public-sector unions with money. During this time, Mr. McGuinty has ramped up provincial spending by 50%. The one-time economic engine of Canada is now $200-billion in debt.
Reckless disregard for Ontario's fiscal health is bad enough. Deliberately misleading the public while spending money under the table is worse. It suggests Mr. McGuinty is more concerned with his own good than that of the province he leads.
Bringing Quebec into the Tory Cabinet
As a judicial recount in one of the Tories' six seats in Quebec threatens to bring their Quebec seat count down to a mere five, the Prime Minister must send a potent signal to reassure Quebecers that he understands and recognizes Quebec's importance within the federation and in his new government.
Mr. Harper also needs to reach out to the inner conservative that lies dormant in the hearts of most Quebecers.
How to kill these two birds with one stone? Appoint Maxime Bernier as President of the Treasury Board.
The position is open, since incumbent Stockwell Day decided not to run in the May 2 election.
Maxime Bernier hails from Beauce, a fortress of entrepreneurship in the heart of the province. He is an efficient communicator who sticks to the message. He emphasizes fiscal conservatism and individual liberties, a stance that resonates with a core of enthusiastic supporters in the province. He preaches the entrepreneurial values that lie at the very centre of Quebec's conservative past, but are too seldom celebrated nowadays.
But hasn't Quebec just voted massively for the NDP?
No worries. That was not an ideological vote, but a last-minute beauty contest among the party leaders. Most Quebecers, especially outside Montreal, hold political opinions radically different from those of the NDP, as they are just beginning to learn.
A recent opinion poll about public finances in Quebec showed that a vast majority of Quebecers believe spending should be cut to balance the budget. Moreover, a majority of Quebecers said that they would like to see the provincial budget balanced next year. And on top of that, it is in Quebec that we find the strongest support for two-tier healthcare.
It is far easier for most Quebecers to identify with a fiscal conservative like Maxime Bernier than with their 58 new NDP MPs combined -especially if Bernier is head of the Treasury Board.
Maxime Bernier is a committed fiscal conservative who pounces on government spending like a hawk. Considering the Prime Minister's campaign promise of a spending review to find $11-billion in savings, Bernier is unquestionably the ideal candidate for the job. In fact, he would likely identify even more possible cuts.
Bernier's appointment to Treasury Board would not only signal that Quebec will matter in cabinet; it would also appease fiscal hawks who are worried about the high rate of spending growth when the Conservatives had a minority government.
Appointing this outspoken and charismatic fiscal conservative from Quebec would allow the Prime Minister to start mending his frayed links with ordinary Quebecers, and with fiscal conservatives everywhere.
0 comments:
Post a Comment