Graph of Population By Latitude and Longitude

While browsing the internet I came across this graph showing the world population by latitude and longitude and thought I would share it.

Via: Chris Blattman

Fun fact: the most populous settlement north of 60 (Helsinki, Finland) has 63.5 times the population of the most populous settlement north of 70 (Hammerfest, Norway) which has 1852.2 times the population of the largest settlement north of 80 (Alert, Canada).

Why Canada doesn't need its Senate

Welcome to part 1 of my indefinite part series: Why we don't need the Senate.

This month, Senator Andree Champagne attacked Vietnamese born MP Eve-Mary Thi Lac by questioning her loyalty to Canada.  Champagne then went on to be quoted in the Toronto Sun saying she was proud of being "a pure French Quebecer - see my geneology."

This is absolutely ridiculous.  I think the important thing to draw from this is that no elected government official could possibly get away with being so offensive.  Today's reason we don't need a senate?  They aren't held accountable for the ridiculous things they sometimes say and/or do.

Funny side note: When the Sun tried to reach Champagne for comment they couldn't because she was on vacation.  She's a Senator, of course she's on vacation!

Is Canadian oil really "ethical" oil?

In a recent article in the Toronto Sun, Ezra Levant (author of "Ethical Oil") applauded environment minister Kent's description of the Canadian tar sands as the world's "ethical oil" source.  Levant's argument is summed up best in the following quote:

"We're not just better than they are environmentally. We're also more peaceful, we treat workers better and we respect human rights. In other words, we produce oil in a Canadian way, not a Saudi way. The oilsands are like the fair trade coffee of the word's oil industry."


In many respects this is a fair argument.  It is certainly undeniably that Canada has the best human rights record among the top 4 oil exporting countries, and I'm sure Canadian environmental regulations far outmatch those of Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the U.A.E.


But does being better than the most obvious alternative really make the tar sands the best option?
The answer to that question is an obvious no.  In this age of climate change and environmental degradation, government policy should be promoting solutions in more sustainable energies such as solar, nuclear and geothermal.  If the best  we can do is a slightly better alternative to the practices that got us into our current mess, then clearly we're not trying hard enough.

My Picks for "Public Eye Awards 2011"

Recently I came across this website which is holding a vote for most evil corporation of the year.  Now obviously evil isn't the right word so for the remainder of this article I'll say irresponsible.  So among the corporations nominated on the aforementioned website, here's how I would rank them from most socially/environmentally responsible to least socially/environmentally responsible.


                                                                                                                                                                    
6) Axpo.  Current place in voting: #2
"Axpo obtains Uranium from the most radioactive place on Earth and has been concealing this fact for years."

Ignoring the inconsistency of the website which describes the area as "the second most radioactive" and "one of the most radioactive" places on earth in other blurbs, Axpo seems to be exactly the kind of organization that Greenpeace (who funded the website) would normally support. Axpo garners my award for "least irresponsible nominee" for its active work in the fields of geothermal, hydro, and nuclear energy, all of which are reducing the use of fossil fuels which contribute to global warming.
                                                                                                                                                                   
5) Phillip Morris. Current place in voting #6.
"Philip Morris filed a complaint against Uruguay’s anti-smoking laws and thus undermines public health policy."

Its not that I think smoking is beneficial to society or anything crazy like that, but I do believe that initiating a discussion of the role of the state in what people choose to put into their bodies shouldn't get a corporation nominated for "most evil."






                                                                                                                                                                    
3 and 4(Tie) . Current place in voting #4 and #5.
"Foxconn’s miserable working conditions drove at least 18 young Chinese to commit suicide in 2010"
"AngloGold Ashanti’s gold mining in Ghana contaminates soil and poisons people."

These corporations are both nominated for effectively the same reason: poor operating conditions in underdeveloped countries. In both cases, this isn't really a failure of the respective corporations as it is a failure of government to regulate. Or in the case of China, a failure of government not to intentionally oppress its own people.


                                                                                                                                                               
2) Neste Oil. Current place in voting #3.
"Under the misleading name of “Green Diesel", Neste Oil mass-produces biofuel that results in the clearing of rain forest."

Bio-fuel is fuel made out of plants. Plants are green. Ergo, Green Diesel. Its only misleading if Greenpeace thinks they have a monopoly on the word green. As much as I like to call out Greenpeace on their inconsistencies, I do think bio-fuel is pretty much the stupidest attempt at eliminating fossil fuels that anyone could come up with. The growth of plants for bio-fuel takes up farm space that should be producing food and results in the clearing of rain forest in order to create more space for bio-fuel farming. However, this is more the case of a company responding to incentives thought up by stupid politicians than it is a case of a company acting irresponsible or "evil," so Neste Oil doesn't make it to number one.
                                                                                                                                                               
1) British Petroleum (BP): Current place in voting #1.

"The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico cost 11 people their lives and has killed off vast marine areas for years to come."

Of course its BP. The disaster in the gulf dominated headlines for months this year while I don't think anyone has even heard of most of the other corporations on this list. While I still wouldn't apply the label "evil" to BP, the fact that an accident like this is even possible shows that companies engaging in deep-water drilling activities such as this are taking on an extraordinary amount of risk in an incredibly irresponsible manner. The worst part of the disaster though, is that it is going to slow down the timetable for arctic oil development in Nunavut. Seems we will have to wait a little longer before that industry is going to start contributing to local economies in northern Canada.

                                                                                                                                                                
So with the exception of Axpo, it seems that I agree for the most part with voters on this website. I think people just assume Axpo is irresponsible because its involved with nuclear energy which has a powerful stigma associated with it in North America. In reality, nuclear power is going to be an important part of our future strategies to combat climate change, so people are going to have to learn to deal with it.

I'm not sure why such a poll is necessary really. I feel like they could have just ran BP as an uncontested candidate for "most evil corporation" and nobody would have complained.

Book Review: Exporting Democracy

Hopefully a quick book review will help me get back into the swing of things after this unintentional Christmas hiatus.

Recently, I read the most recent publication by Canadian politician of note Bob Rae.  Despite the fact that this book was written by a Liberal party insider, it has surprisingly few references to the Harper government's failures.  Still, the several pages dedicated to why Harper sucks were quite tedious.

However, on the whole, I would say this book provides an interesting look at the ways Canada and other countries have tried and frequently failed to help democracy grow around the world.   Therefore, I give it my highest/lowest rank ever: 6/10.

Exporting Democracy, Bob Rae

What year defines Canada as a country?

The date of Confederation (1867) is generally considered to define the beginning of Canada, but this may not be completely fair.  On this date, the British Parliament passed the British North America Act which combined the colonial provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in to the Dominion of Canada.  However, Canada already existed prior to this date, and full constitutional independence wouldn't be achieved for over a century, so its somewhat unclear that the date of Confederation is the date that should define Canada as a country.  Below are some other dates that could also be considered the definitive Canadian date:


1791:  The British controlled Quebec territory was divided into Upper Canada and Lower Canada in order to separate the jurisdictions of predominantly French speaking Lower Canada and predominantly English speaking Upper Canada.  This was the first creation of territories bearing the name "Canada."

1848:  In 1841, the territories of Upper and Lower Canada were combined into the United Province of Canada which led to a responsible government led by Louis LaFontaine in 1848.  This was the first government in Canada run directly by Canadians and had a degree of autonomy from the British government.

Louis LaFontaine: First Prime Minister of Canada?

1867:  Confederation.  As mentioned above, Confederation united the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  It also set up Canada's modern federal style of government and resulted in more autonomy for the elected Canadian government.

Fathers of Confederation: Not much in common with American founding fathers

1931:  The Statute of Westminster is passed by the British Parliament which reorganized the imperial system into the Commonwealth of Nations.  This granted legal independence to Canada and pretty much total legislative autonomy.  Under this definition of Canadian independence, the little known R. B. Bennett was the first Prime Minister of an independent Canada.

R.B. Bennett: First Prime Minster of Canada?

1982: Following the agreement of the British Parliament, the Constitution Act of 1982 modified the Canadian constitution so that the Canadian government could modify its constitution without requiring the agreement of the British Parliament.


So there are about 5 possible dates that could be described as the beginning of Canada.  While confederation isn't a bad date because it created the modern form of government and allowed significant autonomy, I think the most appropriate is either 1848 and Louis Fontaine's responsible government or 1931 and The Statute of Westminster.  I think the reasons these aren't generally considered is that, in 1848, no spectacular documents were drafted to allow for responsible government, and in 1931 Canada was already thought of as effectively independent, so legal independence didn't really seem like a big deal.  In conclusion: Canadian history is fascinating, I don't know why people think it isn't.