Global warming and Canada's complicity

I've never really been much of an environmentalist. Growing up, my parents instilled in me some basic principles of conservation: things like recycling, not littering, and re-wearing the same clothes over and over until they stank or spontaneously biodegraded on my body (to avoid excess water consumption washing them I suppose) 

But one thing that always struck me about the environmental movement was the passion of the activists. My personal favourite are the new wave of Greenpeace folks who race around in their James Bond-esque speedboats in an attempt to interfere with the fishing efforts of those always chipper Japanese whaling crews.

The two sides exchange water cannon barrages, toss flash-bang grenades at each other, and follow the whole thing up with some nonsensical rambling over the bullhorn.

Perhaps I just never understood how people could get so worked up over a few clubbed seals or the cutting down of a couple hundred acres of forest. My understanding was that nature in all its massiveness would quickly replenish what was taken from it – no hurt, no foul.

But lately I can't help but feel that Canada's wilderness, with its incredibly varied and pristine ecosystems, seems to be feeling the sharp end of humanity's consumptionsickle (yes, like creamsicle only sharper and with more consumption)

Now don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a resource that took millions of years to come into existence being harvested in a twenty-year frenzy of drilling, pumping, scouring and digging. In fact, we should give ourselves a gold star for such efficient results.

If anything we should be kicking ourselves for not exhausting our resources faster. With worldwide appetite for carbon based fuels and rare earth elements at an all time high, surely now is the time to cash in. Combined with geopolitical instability in the Middle East and South East Asia where oil resources are capable of being held hostage by unfriendly regimes, nations are looking elsewhere to secure more reliable sources for their energy needs.

And Canada is only all too willing to prostitute itself. Between the Alberta oil sands and the planned exploitation of thawing Arctic waters, Canada has a unique opportunity to not only benefit from the effects of global warming, but to significantly contribute to the problem as well.

And if there is anything we Canadians do well, it's digging big holes. Apparently 20% of the oil locked in Alberta's 141,000 square kilometers of oil sands is recoverable through open pit mining -- that's a piece of real estate the size of the country of Haiti or Albania.

While most other countries battle genuine terra firma issues -- things like shrinking useable land due to population density issues or the reduction of arabal land for crop production -- Canada is busy turning tracts of earth the size of countries into toxic sludgepits.

Adding insult to injury, when the oil companies are finally finished their short lived Alberta misadventure they won't be replacing the boreal forests and muskeg destroyed in the process of extruding the oil (they will however sod it for you).

Not too far from my home sits an example of just such a useless piece of land. Closed in 1979, the Marmora open pit mine removed 1.5 Million tons of ore during its relatively short 24-year run, or enough to build 21 Nimitz-sized aircraft carriers.

The pit itself covers an area of 75 acres, and due to rainfall and underground springs the 600-foot deep pit has become a massive man-made (unswimmable) lake. Due to the mining efforts carried out there (as well as those of other local mines in the area) the wetlands of the region have been turned into heavily fortified no-go zones -- the soil heavily contaminated with runoff waste and mining by-products. Surrounded by a 10-foot tall barbed wire fence, the area is completely uninhabitable and is likely to stay that way for generations to come.

Comparatively speaking, the long term damage to the environment from the Marmora Mine surpasses even the nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which were quickly rebuilt and thrive today (despite higher rates of cancer and birth defects). Today both cities bear little evidence of the atom bombs, save that of a few war related memorials.

But the effects of mining are much worse. No amount of landscaping is going to bring back the natural beauty of the countryside with its forests and ecosystems. And it is also certain that these toxic, heavily compacted tracts of land will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years to come.

Not that Britain's richest man should give a hoot about that. To the ignorance of most Canadians, billionaire steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal is volunteering Nunavut -- Canada's Northernmost territory -- as his next mining experiment. Toting the massive infrastructure and labour benefits that his mine would bring to the local Inuit, Mittal is gambling on the assumption that given enough economic incentive, local and federal governments will bow to his plan.

And it will be his way or the highway, literally. Mittal's plan is to build a 150 km railway from the mine to not one, but two ports (which he will build). Not only this, but he'll need “to build 24 bridges, stretches of road, warehouses, fuel depots, landfills and an airstrip.” Phew. Oh, and he needs to open a few more mines just to extract enough ore to build everything he's got in mind.

Given that the Arctic is one of the few areas relatively untouched by human destruction, you figure its protection would be of vital importance to citizens and governments alike, right? You might even go so far as to expect the Feds to take up arms to defend it. Well, that's what's happening – kind of. Except that it's not the walruses, polar bears or permafrost getting the bodyguard treatment.

No, it is the humans. In particular, the humans who will be pumping the gas and oil out of the thawed ice flows. Locked in a bitter struggle over territorial borders, those nations ringing the Arctic Ocean (Norway, Russia, US and Canada) are attempting to work out the best possible settlement for their respective countries in regard to the region's massive carbon deposits.

Despite the global warming klaxon sounding regarding the futility and foolishness of pursuing a carbon based energy policy, these nations see only lost revenue generating opportunities. Like an addict desperate for the next high, these governments are desperate to be seen capitalizing on the massive natural wealth hidden beneath the sea floor, even if it means polluting pristine ecosystems or going to war over it. Which may happen.

Canada's fumbling response to the warming of the Arctic was to initiate an ice breaker ship building program (which is yet to see the light of day), recommended building an Arctic forward operating base to keep an eye on all the hypothetical shipping traffic, and rearmed the only actual Canadian presence in the North – a handful of Canadian Rangers – with new boots.

Russia on the other hand resumed long-range bomber patrols over the arctic, planted a flag 14,000 feet down on the ocean floor, and celebrated the whole thing by firing a bunch of missiles from a nuclear missile submarine.

What worries me is the attitude of all those parties involved, including Canada, regarding this newfound “Arctic soveriengty”. Nobody cared about the place when it was covered with ice and snow, but with the possibility of accessing all that valuable "black gold", suddenly the Arctic is everyone's concern.

It is possibly this banter between countries is just a case of harmless sabre rattling -- but I doubt it. What boggles the mind is that our supposedly modern liberal democracies are using militaristic rhetoric to defend an industry which is (at least in the West) primarily a private enterprise. This sets a dangerous precedent regarding the narrative of international relations, especially considering the primary actors -- Russia and the US -- have a history of using force in order to obtain natural resources and resolve territorial disputes.

Given the dwindling supplies of fresh water and arable land worldwide, it seems trivial to threaten war over something as silly as oil. Then again, the global economy would falter without it. With no viable fuel alternative, oil sands pundits like Paul Michael Wihbey are preaching the idiocy of not exploiting the few remaining fossil fuel reserves.

What is most confounding is while everyone is fully aware of the effects of global warming, the exhausting of the carbon based fuel supplies, and the global conflicts that will inevitably result – few nations are going "balls to the wall" trying to solve the problem.

Countries like America will declare war on drugs and terrorism (both impossible to achieve goals) coughing up trillions of dollars in the process, yet somehow find it distasteful to deal with what is quite certainly the two biggest threats facing humanity today – the effects of global warming, and the exhaustion of carbon based fuels. It's almost enough to turn me into an activist.  

Mulroney: The educational Opera

Only in Canada would we turn the story of a mediocre Prime Minister into an opera. Perhaps we're a more cultured bunch, but equally unique is our ability to produce films with little intention of ever recouping the invested capital.

Yes, I'm talking about Mulroney: The Opera.  Having never seen the film I'm not yet ready to pass judgement on it, but it does look like a glowing example of Canadian tax payers money put hard to work. And it actually looks kind of entertaining.

But it was an interview featured on TV Ontario's The Agenda that planted a curious question in my overworked cerebral cortex. What was this films raison d'etre -- its purpose? To give some context, interviewer Steve Paikin asked the films director Larry Weinstein why the film had such a small release. Weinstein nonchalantly replied that 72 screens nationwide was a lot for a Canadian film -- despite an extremely short theatrical run of a only two days. Seeing that the project was initially financed by the CBC, I'm guessing Weinstein didn't have too much at stake if the thing bombed.

Part of me was proud of Weinstein's "whatever" attitude towards the financial profitability of the film. Somehow I couldn't picture his hypothetical American counterpart saying the same thing.

But the other half of me felt like throwing an Iraqi shoe at the guy. Not that he wasn't charming and well spoken. He was. It's just that his viewpoint, be it true to reality as it was, did not represent my expectations of what the Canadian Film Industry should be.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think an Avatar type investment/return in every Canadian production is what were looking for here. Nor does my philosophy preclude a complete abandonment of our unique Canadian-esque heritage or creative processes (whatever that looks like).

If I heard Weinstein right, he saw his five year labour of love as a investment in Canadian culture, possibly influencing and educating future generations of Canadians. I guess this "film as educational tool" attitude is somewhat justified considering the majority of the financing for Mulroney came from the tax payers themselves.

But it says very little for future projects, especially those which strive to reach a larger, more international and in particular -- a more commercially oriented market. Being the hungry beast that it is, a feature film requires a huge capital investment-- an investment which needs to be recouped if one ever expects to have an opportunity to make another film.

This isn't such a problem in Canada where so few films are made anyway, and where content is often highly scrutinized for its Canadianishness before it ever sees the light of production. But is it possible that Canada will ever see an American style movie industry with all its private venture trappings and blockbuster appeal?

Given that Canada's market is approximately 10% the size of a comparative US market, Mulroney: The Operas opening on 72 screens equates to about 720 screens south of the border. This sounds like a lot, until we consider that The Tourist opened on 2756 screens. Given a run of two days, my hunch is that the theaters involved didn't see much commercial benefit in showing the flick. This shouldn't be seen as unusual, as only 1% of Canadian box office receipts actually come from Canadian films.

This isn't to say that our films aren't interesting or are culturally insignificant. It speaks more to an inherent Canadian bias against private investment in “Hollywood North” then it does anything else. Ironically, the price of the public controlling the Canadian film industries purse strings is simply that the general movie going public would rather see more of something else from somewhere other than here.

The barriers erected by the Canadian government to prevent well known American talent from appearing in publicly funded films is an example of such protectionism. Though understandably justifiable (after all, who wants some pretty American actress walking off with Canadian taxpayers money) – the policy inevitably curtails creative and entrepreneurial efforts to capitalize on a film stars global popularity and special talents.

The situation we've created for ourselves is a self-perpetuating and all too familiar one – our most talented and promising actors head South, get a big gig on some big US network and buy a mansion in LA. Without a doubt their suntanned hides end up getting featured on the ever-eager-to-promote-anything Canadian Entertainment Tonight: Canada, where they fondly reminisce about the good life back “home” and reassure us that, yes, they are still essentially Canadian.

But of course we true Canucks are too polite to resent their backstabbing ways, and we wish them well in their new found life of wealth and fame. We accept their defection to the land of pay-for-it yourself health care and selfish individualism -- only to claim them as our own during those identity searing conversations about what it is to be an insecure Canadian.

Okay, so I'm being a little facetious. But what of the Canadian film industry, eh? It certainly isn't suffering for lack of talent. But is our socialist bent hurting more than it's helping?

I once heard Paul Gross (Due North, Passchendaele) discuss the hurdles he had to jump through to get financing for his films. His conclusion was that private funding was absolutely necessary and mostly missing from the Canadian filmmaking experience; that government funding still had a role to play; and that for better or worse things in the Canadian entertainment industry had to change.

Quite understandably, the big American studio system that developed in the 1920's through 50's never developed in Canada. Companies like Warner Bros, Columbia, Fox and Paramount have no Northern equivalent. And unlike the publicly funded system in Canada at the time, Hollywood was for the most part profit driven. The studios controlled pretty much every aspect of the movie making process – from filming on the massive sound stages, to production, to distribution -- even extending to control and ownership of the movie theatres themselves.

That wasn't so much the case after the 1948 Supreme court ruling abolishing such practices, but the foundation of an effective and thriving entertainment industry had already been established. In Canada, the CBC was pretty much the be all and end all of production. Nearly everything that was made featured a satirical political slant, and because the industry was publicly funded content primarily promoted the values and beliefs of the average Canadian.

There's been a host of Canadian directorial success stories too- David Cronenburg, Atom Egoyan, Ivan Reitman, Paul Haggis, James Cameron – just to name a few. But rarely did their notoriety come as a result of a truly Canadian project.

That's not to say that Canada hasn't had a few random hits. Passchendaele ( a big budget war movie which included a $5 M dollar grant from the Alberta government), Bon Cop, Bad Cop, Mike Clattenburg's hilariously vulgar Trailer Park Boys TV show and film, The Trotsky -- are all examples of fairly recent breakthroughs that “made it” and had notable Canadian and international recognition. For the most part however these works were still products of the Canadian tax payer.

But I can't remember the last time I heard an American producer crying for more government involvement in getting a film made. Perhaps this is due to their legacy of self-determination slash fear of tyranny mentality that drives them to seek a profit margin with their films. By allowing for substantial private investment, they seem be able to maintain and support an industry which makes available future funds to both deserving and talented filmmakers.

Then again, perhaps the Canadian film industry is simply too fragile to stand on its own, or the population base too few to validate the huge capital investment these films entail. Perhaps government should be there to ensure Canadian culture is promoted and protected from the polluting influence of the those damn Yankees.

But like so many other incidents of Canadian brain drain, if we don't allow for reduced government regulation and increased private funding, it is likely we'll get more of the same culturally significant yet rarely seen films. All I know is that if I had spent five years making a film, I would want it to end up as something more than a high school teaching aid.

The F-35 - Does Canada need it?

Few things are more awe inspiring than having a fighter jet fly over but a hundred feet above your house. The glass rattles, the floors shake -- you can't help but be impressed with the raw power of such a creation.

Living next to Canada's biggest air force base CFB Trenton, it's a monthly occurrence. The CF-18s come in from Bagotville or Cold Lake -- sometimes on a training mission, sometimes escorting the fallen back from Afghanistan. And every time I see them the inner child wanna-be fighter pilot in me can't help but smile.

But alas, the CF-18s are approaching the sunset of their years and will soon require a replacement. The federal government of Canada has arbitrarily decided its successor to be the American designed, multi-national Joint Strike Fighter -- the F-35.

Now never mind no-bid contracts, actual sticker price or other political haggling in Ottawa: is the F-35 the correct fighter jet for Canada?

There's a lot of opinion out there, most of which is negative. Skeptics point out deficiencies such as poor maneuverability (wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratios), small internal weapons carriage, single engine design, low maximum speed and host of other items.

Peter Mackay and DND are standing by the F-35 as the only Generation 5 fighter offered on the world market today. The only equivalent Gen 5 aircraft currently operational is the F-22 (also manufactured by Lockheed Martin) but US laws prevent its sale.

So what of the F-35? And what missions are so essential that the tax payers need to shell out tens of billions of dollars? Let's dive into it.

Point One - Canadian Arctic sovereignty

Undoubtedly, after all those lovely green house gas emissions turn our North into the world's largest schoolyard slush pad, drilling for natural gas and oil won't be far behind. And those billions of dollars flowing into private coffers means these corporations are going to need some public protection. It's not like we've never seen a war over oil before. So the F-35s will be flying over the North pole, mixing it up with Santa's reindeer. This is where many question the use of a single engine.

During the F-35 procurement announcement Defence Minister Peter Mackay was asked by a journalist what would happen if the F-35’s single engine failed in the Far North. Mackay replied confidently: "It won’t."

I hope he found some wood nearby to knock on. As the son of a mechanic, I can tell you that inevitably Murphy's law will kick in. Mechanical devices -- especially complex ones like a modern jet engine involving thousands of parts and run by complex computer software -- will eventually clash with human error and nature itself. If, for example, an F-35 developed engine trouble while on an Arctic sovereignty combat air patrol (CAP), it can't simply drop it's gear and land on a nearby ice flow. The F-35's "competitors" -- the French Dassault Rafale, the European Eurofighter, the Russian Sukhoi series -- all feature twin engine designs. Two engines are a built in, if not vital, redundancy.

Regardless, the Americans have been operating the single engined F-16 since the late seventies, and are still offering the aircraft for contention in India's MMRC fighter competition.  The backbone of the US air force fighter, strike and close air support arm, the F-16 is due to be replaced by the F-35 as well.

Point two- Foreign military intervention

Other than the previously mentioned Arctic sovereignty missions, the only time the F-35s would likely ever see action (based on the CF-18's history) is in limited, mostly lop-sided strikes on rogue regimes. The CF-18's first taste of combat was during the 1991 Gulf war. Since then they've dropped bombs on Serbia and Libya.  The F-35 would easily usurp CF-18s in these sorts of operations -- given its strike, stealth and electronic warfare capabilities.

The aircraft is also touted by Lockheed Martin for its interoperability among user nations. This isn't only limited to, let's say, a US F-35 sharing  communications and sensor data information with a Canadian F-35 during a coalition strike mission on some far off battlefield. It also includes logistics. A common supply chain of parts and weapons, especially among NATO countries, is an attractive option. The bigger the network, the cheaper and more widespread the parts.

What about threats over the modern battlefield? Much of the chatter on the Internet regards the ability of the F-35 to defend itself against current and future air to air threats, in particular the Sukhoi Su-27 series of fighters currently being snapped up around the world. What if a conflict erupted over Taiwan or Korea that pitted Chinese Sukhoi's against a UN fleet of F-35s?  I'm not going to dive into this argument, but I will speak to the concept of superiority in numbers.

As a child, I gobbled anything related to World War Two. Documentaries, books-- anything I could get my hands on. And one thing I was reminded of time and again was that no matter how wonderful a piece of German kit was, be it a Tiger tank or a ME 262 fighter jet, there were always more Allied Sherman tanks and P-51 Mustangs than they could contend with.

In particular, Sherman tanks were manufactured in the tens of thousands. One on one they were no match for the Tiger's superior firepower and armor. However as the allies pressed across Europe, the mass of Shermans swarmed and devoured Panzer groups like South American fire ants on a fallen carcass. The Soviets applied the same "mass" concept on the Eastern front. Which brings me to my next point.

Point three - Quantities

Are 65 F-35s enough? The Canadian forces seem to think so. We purchased 138 CF-18s in 1982, but that was in the midst of the Cold War. What about modern requirements?

Given that the largest ever deployment of CF-18 fighters numbered 26 during the Gulf War, a total force of 65 sounds a bit low. Then again, at over $130 million a copy, the feds could run into some red tape trying to buy more. Comparatively, the nearest Western nation in terms of GDP and population, Spain (GDP $1.3T and 46 million people) and Australia (GDP $1.2T and 22.6 million people), also fly F-18s.  Australia has already begun replacing their 71 Hornets with 24 F-18 "Super Hornets", and plans a buy of up to 100 F-35s. Spain is replacing their current force of 88 Hornets with 87 Eurofighters.

What about attrition? In the years since acquiring the CF-18, Canada has lost eighteen of the fighter-- an attrition rate of 7.6% over 29 years. Given the same time frame, a force level of 65 F-35s and similar low-intensity combat involvement, that leaves us with about five crashes over the service life of Canadian F-35s. Now that's assuming the F-18 and the F-35 have the same attrition rate. We do not yet know the reliability of this Gen 5 aircraft. With its extremely advanced software architecture, composite materials and stealth coatings, future reliability is anyones guess.

Point 4 - The "IT" factor

Simon Cowell knows what "it" is. I believe that Peter Mackay does as well, even if the rest of us are not privy to the kind of insider information regarding the F-35s capabilities that he is. The following features give the F-35 a leg up.

Speed and Range: The F-35 will probably have one of the fastest ground attack profiles of any fighter ever. The necessity of stealth has produced in the F-35 a curious and useful byproduct -- internal weapons carriage. No other modern fighter carries its stores internally (apart from the F-22) and as a result the aircraft's range and speed is increased due to the lack of drag inducing pylons and bombs. And in combat, speed is life. The quicker the aircraft can get to and from a target, the less time it will be exposed to hostile surface to air missiles and enemy fighters. Increased range means more time on station in the CAP role, and deeper penetration into enemy territory for a strike mission -- a quality I'm sure the Israeli Air Force is eyeing quietly.

Critics point to the F-35s maximum speed of Mach 1.6, or 1200 mph, as a significant weakness. They point to other fighters capable of Mach 2 plus as having an edge. My guess is that most are unaware of actual combat operating envelopes for fighter aircraft. In reality, fighters are more likely to chase down some off course Cessna then go screaming around the universe in full afterburner in pursuit of Iron Man. And from my study of dogfights (thank you History Channel) most don't even come close to maxing out. All that weaving and turning bleeds off energy in even the most powerful of fighters.

Sensor Fusion - HMDS, AESA RADAR, DAS: These bad boys are the pinnacle of modern fighter avionics. The electro-optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) gathers, tracks and projects imagery from several sensors located around the aircraft in order to give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness. A recent test of the system detected and tracked a ballistic missile target from 800 miles away. Unlike radar, the system does not advertise its presence. The French Rafale, Eurofighter and Su-27 family all have InfraRed Search and Track (IRST) sensors, but none even approaching the capabilities of the DAS.

A big selling feature is the AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar. Capable of simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, as well as electronic warfare attack (including inserting malicious code into enemy IT infrastructure and jamming radar and radio transmissions) this radar is one of the few AESA radars equipping fighters today.

These systems are brought together in the The Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS). The HMDS allows for off-bore missile shots, meaning the aircraft doesn't have to be pointed at the enemy fighter to lock on to it. If you've ever seen Top Gun, you know how difficult it is for Maverick to get the aiming recticle on the MIG. Now, all the pilot has to do is look and shoot --although this doesn't apply to a close-in gun shot.

So here we are. It looks as if the F-35 is probably the best option in cases of foreign intervention, although possibly a troublesome one for Arctic sovereignty. The F-35 ground attack capabilities are probably unmatched, and it has potential, however suspect, for any future Cessna hunting.

Interestingly, it seems the US never intended the F-35 to serve alone in combat. In its order of battle, the F-22 fulfills all escort and CAP missions. However Canada doesn't have an escort option (besides other F-35s) which could pose a problem in an unforeseen nation vs. nation conflagration involving modern aircraft.

Perhaps Canada should consider the purchase of a squadron of Eurofighter aircraft if it feels it is lacking in the air combat arena. The Brits are having a fire sale trying to offload a committed to yet unpurchased buy of Tranche 3 Eurofighters. The Saudis got theirs this way. Even the Indonesians are looking at the option.