economist’s take on clean energy oddly one-sided

I was surprised by The Economist’s recent headline piece (‘Clean energy’s dirty secret’, February 25th). Not because it didn’t jibe with my worldview – that I could’ve guessed from the title – but rather by the omission of significant facts and perspectives in the story and the lack of a clear argument to reach its conclusion. I have come to expect and respect level-headed analysis from this newspaper, even on matters over which we disagree. Pro-stability and neoliberal though it leans, it is usually at least thorough and logical. Not so this time.

terror attacks in paris

I have one friend living in Paris. That is my only connection to the city. I have never been there or been particularly drawn to it. I cannot cry for it and will not pray for it. Just as I felt nothing for Beirut, Ankara, Garissa or Mumbai, my heart is unmoved by the terrorist attacks in Paris on November 13th. Even while my head tells me they were horrible atrocities. I mean no offense. I respect the right of others to grieve, to feel shock, to be scared, to be angry. But I cannot compel myself to feel grief or outrage. Perhaps because I am desensitised. Perhaps the link between the attacks and me is weak. I have a low level of empathy anyway. I am neither proud nor ashamed of my lack of feeling. It just is.

new canadian cabinet: hope and frustration

Congratulations to Trudeau for achieving something no other PM in history has managed: Make people give half a flying fudge about a Canadian cabinet! I was shocked when my French and German friends engaged me in discussions on Canadian politics.

bad reporting: chinese home ownership in vancouver

$8m property in Kerrisdale

Affordable housing is among the biggest of Vancouver’s headaches, as is the case in many cities. It’s a hot policy topic. And if I were to use two words to summarise what the discussion boils down to, they would be: Chinese buyers.

measuring responsibility and leadership

Lady Justice (c) Tristan Henry-Wilson

Today I received this in my work email inbox: OECD states cut emissions too slowly.

For anyone who watches the news, this is hardly groundbreaking. For those of us working in environmental justice or international development, we’ve seen graphs and diagrams ad nauseam depicting the earth’s trajectory vis-a-vis greenhouse gas emissions based on different scenarios and data. They have the same story: The planet – and, therefore, humanity – is doomed because we’re not doing enough to rein in emissions.

But who, exactly, are ‘we’?