Weather or Not..

For many decades to come, and probably longer, mankind’s influence on the frequency of extreme weather events will be insignificant.

According to a preliminary report released by the IPCC, there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years, and possibly not until the end of this century.

The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, is in stark contrast to other statements made by the IPCC. It shows that mankind’s influence on the weather is far smaller than natural factors.

If and when mankind’s influence becomes apparent it may be just as likely to reduce the number of extreme weather events as increase them.

Surveying the state of scientific knowledge IPCC scientists say they cannot determine if mankind’s influence will result in more, or fewer, extreme weather events over the next thirty years or more.

The IPCC report says:

"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain"

The Leadership Gap in Europe

The Eurozone crisis and the impact it is having on the world is also a crisis of leadership. This is seen clearly today in the double-speak of the British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor, who met in Berlin.

It is clear that nothing of substance was agreed. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, continues to push for a two tier Europe with the lead countries (Germany and France) being able to take command of other countries when they do not follow the rules embodied in the growth and stability pact. What happens when Germany doesn’t follow the rules – it has broken them sixty times since the Euro was created – is not known. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, continues to deny that there will be a two tier Europe. Suggesting that constitutional reform at this time is a major distraction, Cameron talks as if he is in a position to prevent Merkel and France’s President Sarkozy from winning this argument.

In terms of the actual debt crisis, the “solution” everyone is now narrowing down on is a tax on bank profits. Put this another way, reducing the ability of banks to help the economy by investing and lending. Cameron takes the view that, unless this tax is global, he will oppose it. Merkel takes the view that unless there is this tax, Germany will end up having to bail out Italy, Spain, France, Greece and all the rest – so its urgent and it must happen now, focused first on European banks.

Both Cameron and Merkel like to pretend that all is moving along when it isn’t. They talk rhetoric and platitudes when what is needed is courage. It would be helpful, for example, for Cameron to say at his press conference:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for being here and I would like to thank Chancellor Merkel for an honest and blunt conversation about the future of Europe. We spent several hours in conversation over the last few weeks, including three hours of face to face meetings today, and find that we disagree on the most basic aspects of reform. We do agree that the budget for the EU should be at the level of current budget plus inflation and no more, but that is all we can agree on. We don’t agree on the future of the EU. We don’t agree on the bank tax. We don’t agree that the UK must join the Eurozone as part of the stabilization solution, as Germany suggests and we don’t find it acceptable to consider a two tier Europe. We also don’t think that constitutional reform is a helpful strategy at this time. We will fight this out in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people of Europe and in the end, we will use democracy to let the people decide. Meantime, we will suspend a number of EU regulations and treaty requirements – just as Germany and France have done – so as to enable our own economy to grow. We will in particular focus on job creation through a liberalization of labour laws and tax incentives aimed at enabling investment, growth and job creation – all opposed by the EU. I have no doubt our robust conversation will continue and that we will continue to disagree on the most fundamental issues, but at least we are engaged in an honest and transparent conversation. We both agree that our core commitment is to democracy – something at the heart of our Europe and our future”.

Instead, we got platitudes like “Germany and Britain agree about a lot - starting with the need for a solid European economy, one that is "strong, efficient, that deals with its debts". Or "The UK and Germany need each other". Really.

Its time for courage, inspiration and focus – not spin, deception and double-talk. Don’t hold your breath.

Climate Change and the IPCC - The Durban Boondoggle

Later this month (28th November – 9th December) the world’s climate change ambassadors, crusaders and hangers on will meet in Durban for COP17 – the seventeenth gathering of the wise and passionate meeting with the intent on preventing what Al Gore calls the “climate change catastrophe”. The gathering is titled “Saving Tomorrow, Today”. They had hoped to agree the extension of the Kyoto Protocol and the development of the mechanisms agreed in Copenhagen at COP15. The omens do not look good.

First, the International Panel on Climate Change briefing document under preparation for this summit retreats from the audacious and largely unproven claims made hitherto. The draft document, now being “edited” (meaning expect significant change in its substance and claims) suggests that there will be no significant warming in the next 20-30 years. This is “because the man-made signal is negligible relatively to the natural variability and that we only have low or medium confidence on whether or not the frequency of extreme events is changing and whether or not the greenhouse gases are behind these changes if any”. This is quite a change from previous statements from the IPCC. But it gets better.

The draft document also states: “Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”. It goes on to state “"increasing exposure of people and economic assets is the major cause of the long-term changes in economic disaster losses (high confidence)" – something most scientists who focus on natural disasters have been saying for sometime, quite the opposite of what the IPCC normally claims.

This will come as a shock to delegates, who have based all of their work in the past on the imminent danger and catastrophic scenarios presented by the IPCC (the IPCC claims it doesn’t make predictions) – assuming that the draft document survives the editing process without being unduly changed.

The second challenge delegates will have at COP17 is that the world has changed. Governments now no longer see climate change as the most pressing issue of the century: jobs, hunger, poverty and economic conditions are. As Roger Pielke Jnr. makes clear in his excellent book The Climate Fix – economics trumps climate change mitigation every time.

The US wants an agreement on 'symmetry' of international commitments for developing and developed countries before it accepts the move for a new global climate compact. The US wants emerging economies to be on the same page based on current emission levels but does not accept responsibility for its or the rest of the developed world's historical emissions. It has instead asked for a 'graduation criteria' that would break the current distinction between rich and developing countries and set up a process of including emerging economies in the group that bears binding commitments.

The EU insists that it would sign on to Kyoto II only if emerging economies agreed to binding targets by 2015 and start talks for it right away - a substantial shift from its position a year ago. The attempt to formulate a 'coalition of the willing' seems doomed. Some countries had proposed that those who wish to sign on a new global compact should get on with it, leaving even major emitters like the US out if they are not willing. But this has not found buyers. The targets won’t be changed; they will no longer really be taken that seriously.

The BASIC countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China -- have already taken a position that any decision on climate change actions beyond 2020 must be based on the next report of UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which will be submitted in 2014, and a review of the fulfillment of commitments under the UN climate convention to be done in 2015.

The third challenge the delegates will deal with is downright dishonesty. Only 8% of the "fast-start finance" pledged in Copenhagen has actually found its way to recipients. Many who signed up to Kyoto have paid no attention to their obligations and continue to emit beyond the Kyoto targets – Canada being an example. The EU committed to a target of reducing carbon emissions by 20%, and establishing renewable energy as comprising 20% of energy supply, both by 2020 – the 20/20/20 “rule”. Its not going to happen, especially now that most major economies are in free fall and have backed out of feed-in tariffs and subsidies for the renewable energy sector (see my blog on Peak Renewables). Major counties cannot keep the promises they make.

The final challenge at Durban is the IPCC itself. A major review of the IPCC was called for by Environment Ministers. It concluded that some major changes were required, including changes in process and changes in leadership. Few, if any, of these have been made. Given the tawdry nature of their work and the growing critique of its processes (see the new and excellent book by Donna Laframboise (The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. Toronto: Ivy Avenue Press), many are questioning the veracity and quality of the IPCC and are seeking deeper reforms as well as action on the reforms already called for.

One study, for example, found serious issues with the last IPCC report. Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Jason Johnston researched the IPCC had conclusions on climate change and compared their findings with the peer-reviewed climate science literature. He discovered that "on virtually every major issue in climate change science" IPCC reports "systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties." Put simply – the IPCC exaggerates.

Some three thousand delegates will descend on Durban and they will achieve little, if anything. One thing we could do to lower emissions is to cancel these events. You also need to be careful in following descriptions of these events, especially from the BBC. A BBC World documentary about climate change was sponsored by green crusaders Envirotrade. And of course “Envirotrade was featured in a positive light in the programme but viewers were unaware that there was a funding arrangement in place.” The BBC itself has ruled “that commercial, financial or other interests may have influenced the editorial judgments in these programmes.” So no bias there then. If they are seeking additional funds for new programs, who knows what they will do to secure them.

A One Term President

With just a year to go before the US Presidential election, things look very problematic for ordinary Americans. Unemployment refuses to abate and housing remains a crisis. Citizens are pulling their money from mainstream banks making more banks vulnerable. The US economy is a mess.


President Obama is losing his base in the black vote and the lower middle class – the very people who ensured his victory his victory. These are the groups most affected by the US economic challenges and are becoming less and less mobile, they key to economic prosperity in the US. They will determine whether or not Obama is a one term President or not. Right now, it looks as if he will probably be just that.


On the republican front, we have a "mess" of candidates. While Mitt Romney remains the likely candidate, he is facing challenges from the strange and sometimes weird bedfellows in his party. Tea Party favourites, odd balls and womanizers (Cain, Gingrich to name just two) seem commonplace in the list of would-be Republican Presidents. While Perry may be a solid and sound Texas Governor, as a potential President he looks weak and ill equipped, both intellectually and in terms of communications. Michelle Bachman is just very strange. The person with the most intellect and global experience - John Huntsman – is making no serious impression at all. It looks like the nomination is Romney's to lose.


Meanwhile what suffers is policy. As all shuffle around in the zombie mode of the walking dead, no one seems seriously to be working on policies that will impact jobs, housing starts, weak banks, fiscal responsibility, personal debt and a failing education system. Obama's jobs bill, for example, is largely a political exercise aimed at creating the impression that republicans don’t want to help to create jobs. The debt deal done earlier this fall is a smoke and mirrors exercise by both parties aimed at image management. No one is seriously looking at facing he crisis of confidence in the US economy head on. Canada’s former Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, famously said that elections are not a time for serious policy debate – there is no honesty when you are working hard to be elected.


While the Greek economic tragedy plays out, it should be seen as a precursor to the likely drama in the US when it begins the austerity work of tackling its $211 trillion in sovereign debt and unfunded sovereign liabilities as well as creating the conditions in which the $14.5 trillion in US personal debt can be lowered.


The US is in the most serious economic trouble it has been in since it was founded. One would never know it, listening to the political debate. None of these candidates, including President Obama, is up to the task and work of being President of the United States – a sad state of affairs indeed, sadly also the case across the Eurozone at this time. Don’t expect it to get any better by this time next year.

Why Robert Reich is Wrong

Robert Reich is not happy with Standard & Poor. This is what he says at the Huff Post:

“S&P has downgraded the U.S. because it doesn't think we're on track to reduce the nation's debt enough to satisfy S&P -- and we're not doing it in a way S&P prefers.
Here's what S&P said: "The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." S&P also blames what it considers to be weakened "effectiveness, stability, and predictability" of U.S. policy making and political institutions.

Pardon me for asking, but who gave Standard & Poor's the authority to tell America how much debt it has to shed, and how?”

What concerns him is that S&P’s decision is not based on whether or not the US can pay its bills when they become due – which they can for now - but on whether S&P sees the US as having an ability to deal with the $211 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities.

His argument is overly simplistic: if you can pay your bills it doesn’t matter what your underlying finances are. It is this kind of thinking that led to the recession, based on busted housing bubble and shady derivatives. S& P are right.

They are right for a very simple reason. The commitment made in the brinkmanship politics of last week was to cut $21 billion for a $3.7 trillion budget for 2012 – no congress can legislate for budgets for a decade – and to raise the debt ceiling modestly. They kicked the issue down the road and will ask a committee of 12 to do the dirty work (and then fight over their recommendations).

A 1% rise in interest rates would wipe out the budget cut and increase debts. In fact, as Fareed Zakaria noted on CNN on Sunday, such a rise in debt interest payments to attract investors would lead to the budget deficit rising by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. That would more than wipe out the entire 10 years of cuts proposed in the debt deal. S&P simply observed that the underlying financial strengths and the realism of Congress and the White House in tackling its debt and unfunded liability problems do not deserve the credit protection of a triple A rating. S&P told the Emperor (Congress) that they have no clothes – well done S&P.

Delusions, Politics and the United States

As a counselling psychologist, which I was for a number of years, I often encountered delusional individuals or families. The term “delusional” has a specific meaning: a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated and is held with very strong feelings or opinions and expressed forcefully. A common delusion may be that “my son Jason is probably the best hockey player of his generation” when in fact he is “really average” or that Angela is a near genius when in fact she is not. Being delusional should not to be confused with a delusional disorder, which is more complex psychiatric disorder with a range of symptoms.

One current example of delusional thinking is the President of the United States. He says several times a week that the US is the “greatest country on earth” and does so with seeming conviction. Yet over eighteen million are un or underemployed and the official jobless rate (always an underestimate) is over 9%. Many US states are technically operating in a close to bankrupt financial situation and US debt and unfunded liabilities are in excess of $60 trillion. Some of its former great achievements have been shadow3ed by modest or mediocre performances – its army operations in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the failure of the war on drugs, the poor showing of the US in a variety of sports. While it is true that the US contributes massively to the global economy – US firms and activities provide 25% of the world’s GDP – a great deal of this wealth is dependent on a small number of firms, most of whom outsource manufacturing and logistics to other countries. The US is a great country, but the greatest on earth – a delusion.

Another current example is the idea in Washington that they have responded to the debt crisis by the decisions made this last few days on a process for tackling the debt ceiling and spending. When you look at the agreement it is delusional. The debt ceiling is raised to a lower level than many holding US debt required; cuts to spending are unspecified and to be delayed over a decade; the process for making deeper cuts remains political and vague and few believe the last minute deal will be enough to tackle the real challenge of American’s addiction to debt. There are also no proposals for a significant look at taxation and revenue – the delusion being that cutting spending over a decade will somehow solve the debt addiction problem – a delusion.

My final example of delusion is that the US political system is broken. It is broken in several ways – it is cumbersome, ineffective, riddled with lobby-based agendas (“bought” politicians) and relies on cross-party agreement when the ideological differences both between and within parties are so substantial that such agreements will always be “shams”. It is a very young political system, but it is clearly broken. The delusion is that some hail the agreement in the debt-ceiling and budget as “showing that the system works”. It doesn’t. Exhibit A: the Senate has yet to pass a budget. Exhibit B: the Senate and the House are unlikely to agree on what to cut when – they have had several commissions and task forces over the last decade to address this issue and have not acted. There is no compelling evidence that anything has changed – ask the Chinese Government.

A starting point for “treating” delusional thinking is to confront the delusional thinkers with evidence that their talk and thought process is delusional. This is what Standard & Poor (S&P) did yesterday. They lowered the credit rating of the United States Government, pointing out that the US is delusional and gave an evidence based critique. This was quickly followed by the largest holder of US debt – China – making clear that the US better deal with the underlying problem of living in a delusional world, spending money in ways that do not reflect reality or revenue. Other debt holders (like Brazil and the EU) have also made similar statements recently.

The chattering classes on the hill cannot talk themselves out of the current delusion by substituting it with a new one – they have not “solved” the debt addiction problem, they have merely found language and some limited action which postpones having to do so. What is needed is a reform of the budget process and spending / revenue and a reinvention of US political process. Until this occurs, delusions will continue.

Solar Subsidy

The UK Government has announced a cut to its subsidy for large solar installations.

As of the beginning of August, installations of solar power that are between 50 kilowatts and 150 kilowatts of capacity will receive 19p per kilowatt-hour produced, down from 32.9p. Larger installations of up to 250kw will receive a reduced tariff of 15p per kwh and field-size installations of between 250kw and 5 megwatts of capacity will get half that, at 8.5p per kwh. Both larger sizes were previously paid 30.7p per kwh.

A sign that the political commitment to renewables has peaked.

More on Peak Renewables

One response to the idea of peak renewable energy has been that subsidies for energy are commonplace and while they remain, they should apply to renewable energy just as they do to coal and oil and gas. If they did, then the idea of peak renewable energy falls flat.

To deal with this response we need to understand something about costs and subsidy. Let us look at costs first.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) calculated the costs in dollars per megawatt/hour of different energy sources as follows: Conventional coal power: $100.40; Natural gas: $83.10; Nuclear: $119.00; Onshore wind power: $149.30; Offshore wind power: $191.10; Thermal solar power: $256.60, Photo-voltaic solar power: $396.10.

According to the EIA, the availability, i.e. the ability to produce electricity on demand is 85% for coal, 87% for natural gas, 90% for nuclear, but only 34%-39% for wind and 21%-31% for solar. For CSP Solar to produce electricity the other 74% of the time requires costly thermal storage or an auxiliary fossil fuel boiler (usually a natural gas boiler that operates at about half the efficiency of a modern combine cycle natural gas turbine).

Availability is important, since capacity to produce (e.g. a wind turbines capacity) is not the same as actual production from that energy source. The above estimates of availability (production) are optimistic.

What is clear so far is that renewable energy is less reliable and more expensive than abundant energy from gas or coal. It is also more expensive than nuclear.

This is why governments, for environmental reasons in part but also so as to support a "green economy agenda", subsidize renewable energy. Let us look at energy subsidies.

According to an EIA study based on 2008 data, the U.S. subsidizes solar power to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, $23.37 per year for wind, but only 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and $1.59 for nuclear power. If renewable energy was as prevalent as fossil fuels, we couldn't afford the subsidies.

The argument that renewable energy is efficient is lost. The argument that renewable energy is subsidized in just the same way as other energy sources is lost - look at the scale of the difference in subsidy. The argument that remains is the impact on CO2.

Yet as we have grown our renewable energy sector in the US, Canada and Europe, CO2 emission have risen. The impact is negligible.

The political willingness to support renewable energy may be peaking as more and more politicians realize that renewable energy systems are not the answer they were looking for.

Peak Renewables?

The idea of “peak oil” has been around for some time. It is a simple idea. At some point, we start to deplete oil reserves faster than new reserves become available and when this occurs, the peak of available oil has been reached and its all downhill from there – we are in a terminal decline.

There are several problems with this idea, The first is that technology changes. As it does, our ability to make the oil we have go further or to extract more from known deposits increases. So the “peak” keeps moving. For example, horizontal drilling and “fracking” open new opportunities to increase supply from previously inaccessible reserves or to pursue enhanced recovery from known reserves. Similarly, carbon capture and storage is a technology being pursued in part because it enables enhanced oil recovery. Given that most drilling and production leaves 60% of the oil in the ground, new technologies could essentially double the value of reserves by securing a further 40%.

The second problem with trying to pin a date on peak oil (not necessarily with the construct itself) is that we keep finding new reserves of unconventional oil as well as conventional oil. For example, the reserves of oil sands in the Peace River area of Alberta are substantial but not yet fully accounted for in the analysis of reserves.

The third problem is that demand is also a function of other factors. For example, the price of natural gas is helping households switch from oil based heating to natural gas and oil consumption for transportation demand is affected by substantial improvements in fuel efficiency for motor vehicles.

Given all of these factors, current predictions of the timing of peak oil include the possibility that it has recently occurred, that it will occur shortly, or that a plateau of oil production will sustain supply for up to 100 years. None of these predictions dispute the peaking of oil production, but disagree only on when it will occur. How helpful is that?

But we can also apply the idea of “peaking” to the renewable energy industry – wind, solar, biomass, hydro.

Two arguments for switching to renewable energy -- the depletion of fossil fuels and national security – seem now to be less plausible. The U.S., Canada and Mexico are sitting on substantial quanities of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.

So now the major reason for supporting a transition to renewables rests on their potential mitigation catastrophic global warming.

As governments around the world look to better manage their fiscal resources, they are changing the “rules” of the game with respect to subsidy of renewable energy. For example, Ontario has suspended all offshore wind projects indefinitely – throwing the policy for renewables into doubt. The leader of the Ontario Conservative Party, currently favoured as the next Premier, sees the subsidies for renewables and the likely impact on energy bills (a 42% rise over the next four years is predicted by the Government of Ontario), as a key election issue. He is receiving widespread support.

In the UK, which has over 2,560 wind turbines installed, the ambition has been to secure 40% of energy from renewable sources, primarily wind. A total of 7,000 turbines, on and off-shore, are either under construction, approved for building or seeking planning permission in the UK. Wind power currently provides 2.3 per cent of the UK’s energy needs – leading the Government’s target to be dismissed by most experts as unrealistic. To achieve the target, two new substantial turbines would need to be erected every day for the next twelve years.

According to government figures, the average wind turbine operates to just 27 per cent of its and there are some grounds for suggesting that even this is a significant exaggeration. Professor Michael Jefferson, of the London Metropolitan Business School, says that in 2008 less than a fifth of onshore wind farms achieved 30 per cent capacity. In that same year, the 140-turbine installation at Whitelee, near East Kilbride operated at just 7.3 per cent of its capacity.. Professor David MacKay, chief scientific adviser at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has pointed out that in autumn/winter 2006/7 there were 17 days when output from Britain’s wind turbines was less than 10 per cent of their total capacity. On five of those days, output was below 5 per cent and on one day it was only 2 per cent.

To encourage more green energy, the Government launched the Renewables Obligation scheme. Each year, power suppliers must buy a fixed proportion of electricity from green sources. If they fail to meet the target they pay a fine to Government. That money is then split between the owners of existing wind farms. The cost of the Renewables Obligation is passed on to consumers in their fuel bills and is rising sharply each year. In 2006 it was $958 million. By 2020 it will be $4.79 billion.

The Daily Mail looked for the most useless wind-turbine in Britain. The current prize winner is near Reading. The 280ft generator located near the M4 just outside Reading worked at just 15 per cent of its capacity last year. It generated electricity valued at an estimated $159,000, it secured its owners subsidized of $207,000.

The contribution to CO2 reduction of wind power in the UK is minimal. In fact, a House of Lords study shows that wind power is at least 50 per cent more expensive per unit generated than the other main non-CO2 option, nuclear. That is, it offers less CO2 reduction for the dollar than other means of CO2 mitigation, including solar.

Solar is another renewable technology widely seen as part of the “solution” to the CO2 challenge. Yet Britain has just cut its solar subsidies for at or above 50kW solar systems 70% on the grounds of affordability and encouragement of “other technologies”. The impact on the solar panel industry will be significant. More importantly, as fewer installations occur, so the impact on CO2 will be less.

The situation with respect to solar in Spain is dire. The solar industry received subsidies in 2010 of €2.6bn ($3.66 billion), a sum neither the country – nor the utilities – can afford. The three Spanish energy utilities have paid out €20bn to subsidize solar and wind projects since 2005, and are still waiting for the government to pay them back. Credit rating agencies threatened to downgrade the companies if something was not done to address the "tariff deficit".

The Government has now cut the solar subsidy program dramatically. The former subsidies were so generous that Spain has 10 times the amount of solar capacity the government had planned for by 2010 – and a much bigger bill than it had envisioned. Given its overall economic situation, cuts were needed. Similar developments are taking place in Portugal, Ireland and Greece.

All energy sources have potentially harmful side effects. The genuine problems caused by fracking and possible large-scale future drilling of methane hydrates should be carefully monitored and dealt with by government regulation. But the environmental movement since the 1970s has been fixated religiously on a few "soft energy" panaceas -- wind, solar, and biofuels – and these too have side effects. Wind turbines and high-voltage power lines that accompany them that slaughter eagles and other birds. The ENGO’s support for blanketing desert areas with solar panels, at the cost of exterminating much of the local wildlife and vegetation is also another “side effect” Wilderness preservation, the original goal of environmentalism, is been sacrificed to the ideological whims of a few.

But more significantly, there is a public counter-reaction to “green” energy. Anti wind-farm and solar movements are springing up across the developed world, angry about energy price hikes and at the impact on the environment which these technologies have. They are also sceptical about the impact these technologies are actually having on CO2 reduction – especially given recent reports that CO2 continues to increase, despite a recession and a massive investment in these technologies.

As these industries begin to experience “subsidy-sunset” – they are driven by subsidy not market conditions – then the peak of renewable energy from wind and solar may have been reached. The fact that significant and vocal sections of the public are also speaking up and campaigning, may also be another sign that commitment to renewable energy has peaked. We shall see.

With low cost gas, significant new access to oil and an ongoing investment in clean coal we may not need to worry. We are a long way from peak energy.

“Anyone who thinks my story is anywhere near over is sadly mistaken”. Donald Trump

I am getting some stick for my comparison of Donald Trump with Sarah Palin on two counts. One Donald Trump is no Sarah Palin, she is much sharper and more experienced. Second, I don’t understand American politics – one claimed that 45% of Americans don’t believe that Obama was born in the US (see below), and that both are very credible and respectable potential Presidential candidates and both are speaking on issues which most potential candidates won’t touch with a barge pole. So don’t do down the Palin-Trump axis.

First, I agree with this last point and stated it several times. I also wrote this on my blog post about The Donald: “he may be the only candidate who could garner sufficient support with the party and the people and beat Obama” precisely because he has the cojones to talk about what matters most. I also wrote:

“The tea party don’t like “moderate”. They want radical. They want a candidate who reflects true grit, conservative position and will cut budgets, taxes and restore American to its rightful place in the world. They get excited listening to and encouraging Sarah Palin – they think she’s not just sexy, but right. They think Donald Trump is the new Sarah Palin and is a real man, despite his hair. But they really think that Michelle Bachman, the Senator from Minnesota, combines the best of the Donald and the Sarah into one being. She is likely to be their candidate in the end, and Sarah and Donald will not find a place on the Republican ticket.”

So what’s the scoop.

Birther Issue

On the radio show, which I had no hand in preparing, they played extracts from Donald Trump talking to George Stephanopoulos about the “birther” issue and from his interview on CNN with Candy Crowley. In these interviews Donald said that he thinks the birth of Obama is an issue, but one which the media keeps bringing up. He hopes that Obama is an American citizen, but he suggests that Obama needs to prove it. The majority American opinion is that Trump is wrong. But there are a substantial number of Americans who don’t believe that he was born in the US. A CNN poll conducted in March 2011 has these figures for all Americans:

• Definitely born in U.S. 46%
• Probably born in the U.S. 26%
• Probably born in another country 15%
• Definitely born in another country 10%

but amongst Republicans has these figures:

• Definitely born in U.S. 20%
• Probably born in the U.S. 32%
• Probably born in another country 28%
• Definitely born in another country 15%

A different poll suggests that 51% of Republicans who intend to vote in the US Presidential election believe that Obama was not born in the US. So now we see why Donald is pursuing this viewpoint.

In contrast, Sarah Palin in 2009 denied asking for Obama's birth certificate or denying his citizenship, and again compared birther theories to questions about baby Trig from "many on the left" which were not so much rightful as questions they had a right to ask. In April she again did not pursue the issue when given the opportunity to do so. She does seem to think that it’s a fair question for Trump to pursue, but it’s not a question central to her.

Foreign Policy

“If you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.” Donald Trump

His big idea with respect to Libya, which came from his CNN interview, was for the US to go in and get the oil or not go in at all. He did say that he would let Libya have some of its oil so that they could live a good life, but the battle was about oil. Lets call it what it is and get the oil.

His foreign policy is basically very simple. Tell people what to think. Tell OPEC that we will not pay for oil at the price they want to charge. Tell China to stop playing footsie with their currency (despite the fact that the US is doing the same) and talk up the US. That’s it. Here is what he says: “We have to make it absolutely clear that we’re willing to trade with China, but not to trade away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries that steal from us”.

His overall strategy is this:

“In the modern world you can’t very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker. Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII, and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms. A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations, and above all, constantly put America’s best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning, secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It’s been a long time since America had a president like that. “

The Other Side of The Donald

In any attempt to look at The Donald seriously, one needs to bear in mind Trump's support of the "banking and auto bailouts," his previous description of President Ronald Reagan as a con artist, his affection for Canada's single-payer health care system, and his donations to Obama White House insiders Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley. He has also said many a thing that will come back to haunt him.

Overall though, he will be an interesting, serious and fun person to watch. I am all for this. After all, look at the rest of the field that’s lining up. Not exactly exciting.

One Down

Earlier today Hayley Barbour made clear he was not running for the Presidency. One down, sixteen to go.

The Race for the Biggest Loser

While my wife does not like to miss The Biggest Loser, I am a sucker for political stories. So on Tuesday nights as she watches very large people get shouted at and lose weight, I do my due diligence on the Republican hopefuls for the 2012 Presidential election. It’s the same kind of process – a large number of people get shouted at by trainers (also known as interviewers, pundits and former candidates) and many fall off the wagon, leaving a few standing to run in the primaries. Once the primaries start, there are regular weigh ins (known as polls) and some are voted off the show. Eventually there is one left standing and he or she becomes the Biggest Loser, losing to President Obama in the actual Presidential race in November 2012.

One difference between the two shows is that the Biggest Looser weight loss show makes money and the Biggest Loser Republican show costs money. Its estimated that Obama will raise close to $1 billion to fight his campaign and that the Republicans, between them will outspend him 2:1 in the run up to November. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are buying weight loss products, too tight fitting spandex and signing up for gym membership and boosting the weight loss industry profits.

Part of the problem we have with the Republican party is that it has lost its way. Any party that can have George W Bush as its front runner has lost its way. So the traditional conservatives have formed the loose association we know as the Tea Party. This is an organization that rarely drinks tea and has made clear that it is not a Party in the sense of the Republican party, more like a network of like minded groups. They stand in favour of lower and fewer taxes, smaller government, less intrusive government and what they know as traditional conservative values – no to same sex marriage, abortion, gays in the military and immoral conduct. It is an organization Margaret Thatcher would have recognized as the conservative party she led in Britain – she drank tea and shared these values. The tea party have considerable influence over the candidates and the Republican party, as we can see.


It’s a Melee and a Muddle

At my current count there are some twelve potential candidates (some of whom have declared) and a further six who are “waiting in the wings”.

The key people, and the only serious candidates to look at, are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. If you look at polling undertaken across the US over the last six months, these stand some chance of saving face and not losing too badly. In the most recent poll, Romney is close to Obama (he would lose by 4%) and Huckabee is next (he would lose by 6%). Both are relatively sane, articulate and moderate.

And that’s the problem. The tea party don’t like “moderate”. They want radical. They want a candidate who reflects true grit, conservative position and will cut budgets, taxes and restore American to its rightful place in the world. They get excited listening to and encouraging Sarah Palin – they think she’s not just sexy, but right. They think Donald Trump is the new Sarah Palin and is a real man, despite his hair. But they really think that Michelle Bachman, the Senator from Minnesota, combines the best of the Donald and the Sarah into one being. She is likely to be their candidate in the end, and Sarah and Donald will not find a place on the Republican ticket.

Newt Gingrich comes close to Michelle Bachman in the minds of the tea party, except for the hair. The former speaker is a thoughtful, well read and experienced politician but has the air of the night about him – like a lost ghoul searching for a victim who will willingly sit and listen to him talk for hours. The tea party people see him more as a grandfather than as an aspiring fiancé for the White House. He will not win the nomination.

Then there are at least six men who are smart, articulate but too centrist (or even left of centre) for the liking of the current party. These include John Huntsman (currently Ambassador to China, but about to return so as to run), Tim Pawlenty (former Governor of the State of Minnesota), Mitch Daniels (Governor Indiana), Hayley Barbour (Governor of Mississippi - who made clear after this was originally posted that he wouldnt run), Gary Johnson (former Governor of New Mexico) and Rick Santorum a former United States Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania). All of these are possible contenders – Gary Johnson is already declared – but will require someone to make a major mistake before they make the ticket. One could really say that all are really running for the Vice Presidential place on the Republican ticket, though they will deny this.

If this list wasn’t enough (if you’re keeping count, we’re at twelve), there are another six possibilities that are deeper in the outfield than those listed here. They include Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City), Congressman Ron Paul from Texas (again), gay rights activist and declared candidate Fred Karger, Buddy Roemer, Rudy Giuliani (yes, again) and former UN Ambassador, John Bolton. None of these will make the ticket, though I suspect some will enter the race.

So the list to date of possibilities is eighteen. Eighteen. The Biggest Looser starts with roughly this number of competitors. Their prize for the winner is health, weight loss and a $1 million in cash as well as world wide recognition. For the Republican nominee the prize is debt, losing and world wide recognition. Which do you think is the better deal?

Who Will Trump the Donald?

It's pretty certain. Donald Trump, wealthy man from real estate and the master of poor hairstyles, will run for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. He is smart, articulate, popular with some and more to the point, comes with little political baggage.

True, he comes with other baggage - two divorces, a bankruptcy and his penchant for which publicity. His focus on Obama's birth record is an example of his opportunism, as is his role as executive producer and star on The Apprentice. He is the man behind some seemingly sexist pageants and is also backing the sale of alternative health products. Others may dislike him because of his wealth, estimates between $750 million ( Deutsche Bank's estimate, which The Donald disputes vehemently) and $2.5 billion.

His political views are well laid out in several interviews he had done over the last decade. He is pro life, pro gun and, anti same sex marriage and anti foreign aid. He wants out of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan and strongly believes that, rather than playing nice with China, we should get tough economically with them until they do something to correct their currency. He would put the economy first.

He wants to be liked, but doesn't mind being disliked for doing what is right. He talks a good story, appears tough and cares deeply about America.

He is not likely to win the Republican nomination, even though he may well be a winning candidate. The nomination is likely to go to a GOP "establishment" figure, like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. The Donald has no strong ties with the party elite, is seen by the party as an outsider and spoiler and, as one commentator has already said, "he will out for himself before the party", which is actually what Presidents do.

If he fails to win the party nomination, he may run as an independent - in fact, if he reads the tea-leaves in time, he may just do this off the bat. If this is where he goes, he will split the Republican vote and give Obama a second term. If by some miracle he does become the party nominee, he may be the only candidate who could garner sufficient support with the party and the people and beat Obama.

There are many days between now and polling day November 2012 and so much could happen. Sarah Palin could develop intelligence, Trump might find just the right person to run as his running mate to bring the party on board, the early GOP primaries might signal to the party that their anointed candidates stand no chance of winning and the Tea Party might switch to coffee. Whatever the case, The Donald will make things interesting, at least for a while.

The Situation is Hopeless, But Not Serious

Johan Norberg, the Swedish writer who has written the highly recommended Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation with Home Ownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis, wrote this in The Spectator:

“Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have. There is a broad consensus that the financial crisis of 2007 was at least in part a result of record-low interest rates, huge deficits and large-scale credit-financed consumption. Today, governments across the world are trying to solve the crisis — by means of record-low interest rates, huge deficits and large-scale credit-financed consumption. This time, they are also using more novel means of creating easy money: bank bailouts, stimulus packages and quantitative easing.”

And so we now have the spectacle of a US government owing $14.5 trillion to its bond holders, most US States being significantly in debt and the Canadian government, so widely praised for its response to the financial crisis, also facing significant debts which we will take some time (and some pain) to recover from.

Debt is not necessarily a bad thing, if its planned for, manageable within the available overall financial picture and there is a plan to deal with it. But in the case of the US the situation was not planned for, is not manageable and there is no viable plan to deal with it. Given this, we are all in trouble.

For all the talk of austerity, governments everywhere plan to get through 2011 and beyond by borrowing like crazy. The world's rich countries have increased their debt by some 50 per cent over the past three years, according to the IMF. As we saw from S&P’s comments on their credit rating for the US, at some point the bond market determines that it can no longer accept the situation and action has then to be taken. Sovereign bond markets panicked when Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, suggested that investors might one day have to bear some of their own losses. Bond holders don’t like to speculate – especially those holding Sovereign bonds (bonds issued by a Government) – but that is exactly what they are doing. While the bond is underwritten, bond issuers sometimes default – ask those holding Iceland’s bonds.

On this matter, Norberg writes:

“The problem with socialism,' Lady Thatcher once said, 'is that eventually you run out of other people's money.' This time, it is worse: we are running out of our children's money, and our grandchildren's money. We are assuming we will have a never-ending supply of borrowed money, and we have no backup plan if this supply chokes up.”

So it is time for realism. It is time to bite the bullet and start to deal tough with debt and get it down to a reasonable level in the US, each of the US States and Canada. If we adopt the Golden Rule (ironically developed by Gordon Brown) that that the Government will only borrow to invest over the economic cycle and cannot borrow to fund current operations, then we will see draconian cuts to programs and increased taxes. As a grandparent, this is what we need to do to protect my granddaughters future.

The US needs to get its debt down by two thirds (a spending cut of $9.6 trillion) by 2015 and each of the US states should have debt within 4% of their GDP. Canada should rid itself entirely of debt by 2015. While this will impact employment, wealth and the economy, such a price is necessary to restore economic sanity and give confidence back to people. Its ironic that in order to restore confidence, we may first have to shake it. But shake it we must.

Just as almost everyone I know supports the law, but breaks it every time they get behind a steering wheel or supports “green thinking” and “action on climate change”, but does nothing about it (and generally make matters worse), so we must accept that a part of the problem is ourselves. Our assumption that the government will be there “no matter what” and that we have rights to such services as health care and wonderful services that we refuse to pay the real costs of. Its time for a one time tax hike to pay down debt and restore sanity. Its time for us to get serious about our future and rethink all of our public services in the light of known demographics and technology changes that could make things more expensive. Its time to get serious about our future.

So once the Canadian election is over, let the Government (and it really doesn’t matter which one it is – “the government always gets in”) do some straight talk to its citizens and tell us what we have to do to eliminate debt by 2015 and live within our means after that. Having started this journey, we should then all turn our attention to the US and use whatever networks and influence we have to persuade the people to get engaged in a campaign during the 2012 election cycle to eliminate two thirds of US debt and to live within its means.

When I was training as a counselling psychologist, I was always impressed by Paul Watzlawick’s book The Situation is Hopeless, But Not Serious – The Pursuit of Unhappiness (available free for downloading – just Google the title). The idea is simple. We may feel hopeless in the face of such challenges, but when we put our minds to it, we can cope and deal with the situation. It may take courage, determination and some harsh facing up to reality, but few situations are beyond redemption. What makes us unhappy and sick is the sense that “we’re stuck and there’s nothing we can do about it”. We’re not and we can.

When the US Sneezes Alberta Gets Pneumonia

Standard and Poor’s decision to send a shot across the bows of US economic policy is very welcome. AS the US continues to spend beyond its means and build up a considerable debt - $14.5 trillion and counting – and the politicians cannot agree on a basic strategy to deal with it, someone has to remind the US that sovereign debt needs repaying and that, in the absence of a sovereign, this requires the US to both cut spending on key services (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Services and Defence), reduce transfer payments to States and raise taxes. The trouble is none of the politicians, who tax their friends so as to keep them in office, has the real courage to actually do anything.

To be sure, various politicians talk a good story. But words are cheap. It the action that counts. The recent kerfuffle between the Grand Old Party and the Obama Democrats over a small cut of $38 billion – less than 1% of spending – tells us that courage is absent, politics is broken and even minor challenges to the status quo scare those who govern the nation that used to be the most important on earth.

President Obama has proposed a program of cuts estimated at $4 trillion while his Republication opponents have proposed cuts of $5.8 trillion over ten years. Both see reducing debt as important, but we all know that neither, especially in a Presidential election year, plan to do anything. Cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Services, Defense and hard caps on spending in all other areas coupled with tax increases don’t “sell” to an electorate already battered by the impact of recession.
Yet these same politicians watch the PIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain – struggle to restore confidence in their economies abroad while fighting real battles at home over the nature of economic stringency. The US must see the protests in Greece and Spain as signals of what might happen in Georgia, Detroit, Nebraska and Arkansas and wonder who will be the political survivors.

This is a major issue for Alberta. Our economy, increasingly dependent on unconventional oil and services, relies on the US for its robustness. Our $247.2 billion GDP relies heavily on exports - $53.9 billion in oil and gas - shipped mainly to the US. What happens if the US has a double dip recession and then starts to have real cuts in public spending of the order of a $500 billion a year for the next decade?

We have a clue. When house building collapsed in the US due to the recession, triggered by the housing bubble, our exports of lumber suffered massively and are only now recovering. While we are increasing exports to other jurisdictions of wood and other natural resources, the US is still our major customer. We know that when the US catches a cold we get pneumonia.

So it is in our interest to keep a close eye on the US debt reduction strategy. We should encourage our Southern Cousins to follow the example of Britain and cut deeply, fast and now. Setting an aggressive debt reduction agenda and then following through by doing it may significantly slow the rate of the US recovery, but this is preferable to a unsustainable recovery based on false accounting, avoidance of key issues and a refusal to act. In the medium to long term, the US would be helped not hindered by stringency.

The Next and Last Pope?

Benedict XVI was elected in April 2005 at the age of 78. This was six years ago and he is now 84 and seemingly in good health, though he has had some health incidents since he came to the Throne of St Peter. But when he does fall ill and leave us, who will be the next Pope and will the next Pope be the last?

The front runner is Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Cardinal Secretary of State and Camerlengo, having previously served as Archbishop of Vercelli from 1991 to 1995, as Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the direction of the current Pope. Born in 1934, he is getting on in years, but is a lively and engaging personality and widely respected in the Church. He is favoured by Benedict as his successor, as a number of small indications seem to suggest.

He is not the only Italian in the running. The Cardinal Archbishop of Genoa, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, (68) is also seen as a strong candidate. President of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI), and was elevated to the cardinalate in 2007. He is considered to be conservative in his views, and a theological ally of his predecessor in the CEI, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, who was seen as a major candidate when Benedict was elected.

During the last conclave some liberal media seemed to suggest that an African cardinal may stand a strong change, since it is in Africa that the Church is growing quickly. Cardinal John Njue (67) of Kenya is the only Africa currently rated with an outside chance of winning the election by the College of Cardinals. He is the fourth and current Archbishop of Nairobi, having previously served as Coadjutor Archbishop of Nyeri (2002–2007) and Bishop of Embu (1986–2002). He was elevated to the cardinalate in 2007.

Another African cardinal, Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson (73) is also in the running. Although some bookmakers have made Nigeria's Cardinal Francis Arinze the favourite to succeed Pope Benedict – and thus become the first African pope since the death of Pope Gelasius in 496 – Arinze is now 77 and retired and he may well be too old by the time of any vacancy at the Vatican, Turkson is very active and a constant companion for Benedict – he travelled to the UK on the Pope’s visit in 2010.

There are other, younger members of the College of Cardinals who are seen as pababili – electable Cardinals (though in theory, any Catholic can be elected by the College of Cardinals to the office of the papacy). These include: Oscar Maradiaga, 69, Honduras; Odilo Scherer, 62, German ethnicity, but now Archbishop of São Paulo, Brazil; Philippe Barbarin, 61, Moroccan-Born and currently Archbishop of Lyon in France; Jorge Urosa, 69, Venezuela; Lluis Sistach, 74, Spain; Raul Chiriboga, 77, Ecuador; Stanislaw Dziwisz, 72, Poland and Jose Policarpo, 75, Portugal.

It is unlikely that a Cardinal from Latin America would be elected for three reasons. First, they are distant from the day to day politics of the Vatican. Second, voting would likely be split between them – there are four candidates from the Americas and it is rare that they are aligned on issues or could align around a single candidate. Third, it is more probable that, as has been the tradition for some time, the next Pope like all of the last century, will be a European.

There is some talk of the next Pope being the “last Pope”. In 1139 St. Malachy set out from Ireland on a harrowing pilgrimage to Rome. On sighting the Eternal City he fell to the ground and began murmuring cryptic Latin phrases, each signifying the future destiny of the popes. For four hundred years the manuscript capturing his comments was locked in the labyrinth of the Vatican. On its rediscovery in 1595 it was rejected by the Church authorities as fraudulent but the content of the prophecies remains remarkably and chillingly accurate: to this day 90 percent have come true. St. Malachy prophesied an end to the Roman Catholic Church and predicted the fates of the popes until Judgment Day. According to this prophecy, only one pope remains after Benedict on the doomsday list. We will see.

Meanwhile, you can place your bets at www.paddypower.com. This online betting site has Cardinal Arinze (Nigeria) as the favourite (7/4) and Cardinal Scola of Venice (6/1) and Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez of Honduras (8/1) closely followed by Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco (11/1) as the front runners. Cardinal Bertone, who I see as leading the pack, is sitting at 14/1. For those looking for a wild bet, Bono is 1000/1 as is the former co-star of comedy TV series, Father Ted, Father Dougal McGuire (played by Ardal O’Hanlon).

Innovation, Education, AISI and Alberta

Canada is not very good at innovation. While we spend a lot on research and development as a nation – around $14 billion a year and close to $1 billion from the Alberta Government – we are not very good at turning research into new goods or services which people want to buy or to significant and sustainable improvements in health and education. Indeed, our ability to do so is declining as we become less productive and less competitive as a nation over time.

One of the reasons we are not good at innovation is that the innovation agenda is being driven by Universities. Universities do tremendous work in producing high quality people and in basic research, but have a poor track record in converting research into goods and services or to changes in health, education and social services which last and make a sustainable difference. They are also in general poor at applied research undertaken in partnership with the private sector or with health or educational practitioners, though this is something they are trying to get better at.

In education, the gap between what university researchers in general focus on and what schools need, do and care about is evident. There is an in-built tension between the systematic school improvement focused research needed by school systems versus the individual research interests of particular scholars. This is reinforced by the reward structure of Universities, which puts weight on publications and conference presentations by educational researchers rather than the impact their work has had on student engagement, learning outcomes or teaching quality. Researchers are rewarded for process achievements rather than outcomes.

The attempt to reposition an applied and systematic approach to school improvement as within the scope of university research in Faculties of education suggests three things. First, it is the end of bottom-up teacher driven research. Universities will want, over time, to reify this work. They always do. Look what has happened to the bulk of research in business schools to see how relevant most of this is to the needs of firms. Second, it will slow the pace of research. The term “fast, focused, results oriented research” which has characterised AISI since its inception does not fit within the culture of universities. Finally, we can expect an increase in competition between Universities for research opportunities as opposed to increased service from the Universities to school based researchers seeking to make a difference to the wellbeing and learning of students.

In the “pre 2011 budget” version of AISI, most of the work of Universities was that of providing educational support to in school applied researchers, as collaborators on specific projects or as mentors, coaches and guides to teams doing applied work in schools. While some of this will continue, over time we will see funding for action oriented research erode and Universities increasingly driving the AISI agenda. This is not a good thing. The real authorities on what is needed in schools and what the agenda for change and development should be are teachers and in school administrators: those nearest to the challenges and opportunities.

A world class model of how to do this has been developed, recognized and well resourced in the past. This model has been the engine of continuous improvement (and in some cases transformation) and it has led to significant gains in learning outcomes. This model is AISI as it was, recognized by many as one of the leading programs of its kind in the world and the envy of many jurisdictions. Programs can always be improved and developed, but when Universities take them on they are rarely improved.

Let me be clear. Some Professors at some Universities have done outstanding work in education and in schools and some have also developed collaborative programs that have made a tremendous impact. The Galileo Educational Network within the University of Calgary is one example. But such individuals and such focused and systematic programs are few and far between. Anyone who has worked in Universities knows that they are not adaptive and responsive cultures. Over time, AISI will change and not for the better.

Alberta needs an innovation agenda for change driven by teachers and in school administrators; it needs a process by which those best able to deliver sustainable change in response to that agenda receive support on condition that they share their results in a way that promotes best practice; it needs to see true collaborative partnerships between teachers, administrators, researchers and communities that lead to school improvement; and it needs to see nimble, flexible approaches to how innovation is done. Whatever happens to the next version of AISI and whatever the rhetoric, we should judge the work in terms of impact and outcome.

A Tribute to Chris Gonnet - Leader, Friend, Colleague

Every so often one comes upon a person in authority who is a true leader and an inspiration. One such person was Chris Gonnet, Superintendent of Grande Prairie Public Schools. Chris was a friend, a colleague and a fellow champion of inspiring education. He died yesterday of heart attack. He will be missed by many, but most of all by those instructional leaders within Grande Prairie whom he supported with passion and commitment.

Chris and I worked closely together on the Real Learning First project with JC Couture of the ATA. JC and Chris had taught together in Hinton and both had a commitment to education, innovation and learning that I have always found inspiring. Chris was a champion of the Alberta : Finland partnership for educational change and development and, wearing this hat, he and I spend time together in Stockholm, Helsinki, Jasper and Boston.

Chris was an imagineer and passionate about the core values of a school system. He made a difference. He will be missed.

My heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends and his colleagues.

Creative Alberta

There is a lot of talk in educational circles and amongst employers about the need for the next generation of workers to have twenty first century skills. By this they usually mean that, in addition to mathematical and literacy skills, those leaving schools, colleges and universities should have knowledge and skills in design, teamwork, creative problem solving, critical thinking and an ability to leverage social networks and knowledge. They also need to be able to communicate effectively, both in person and in writing.

Of these skills, what we need most is creativity. We have problems that need solving –environmental challenges, social problems, problems with our health care system, problems of democracy – and its clear that our existing approaches to problem solving are not working. We also need creative people in all walks of life – creative leaders of non-profit organizations, creative designers of clothes, creative culinary technicians, and creative teachers.

The arts are also key to the vibrancy of our communities. Alberta has first class symphony orchestras, a world class ballet company, a very successful opera community and really powerful theatre sector, especially in Edmonton, and a strong visual arts community. In addition to providing pleasure to a great many people, the arts are also a major economic engine in the Province – they are a basis for a significant industry sector in their own right.

Creativity is not at the core of our school system – compliance is. In Grade 7 in Alberta there are over 1,300 objectives to be achieved by students, leaving very little room for creative exploration, real in depth project work or learners creating their own learning agenda. Teachers in high schools feel pressured by the volume of work they must complete so that students can achieve high performance on Provincial Achievement Tests and the High School Diploma. Universities and Colleges push schools each year to do more so as to ensure that students moving to post-secondary institutions have the required skills.

Creativity is also difficult for teachers in large classes – classes of thirty five to thirty five. Schools as physical locations are built for compliance and conformity. The notion of a “class” of students, versus a learning program for each student speaks to this challenge.

If we are serious about developing the creative skills of our learners at all levels then we need to change both what we ask these learners to work on and how we support that learning. In short, we need a transformative change which changes the context, structure and process of learning and change our support systems for teachers to enable this to happen.

This is not an option. To improve the competitiveness and productivity of Alberta firms, to sustain vibrant communities and to rethink our public services we need creative thinking, informed critical thinking and all the design skills we can muster.

A new organization, Creative Alberta, is focusing energy and capacity on making some of this change happen. What a true strategy for a Creative Alberta would be is for Minister Hon. Dave Hancock, Minister of Education, to implement the agenda for change outlined in Inspiring Education – reduce the scope and scale of the Provincial curriculum (teach less, learn more), free schools from many of the constraints under which they currently operate, downsize the role of Government and ehance the independence of schools, change the accountability regime and move to a public assurance model for accountability and invest in the professional development of teachers. There is also a need to create several different routes for the High School Diploma, only one of which should be focused on progression to post-secondary education.

Twenty first century skills require twenty first century schools. Its time we enabled them.

Sarah Palin for President? Not..

The idea that Sarah Palin could be a serious candidate for the Presidency of the United States in 2012 helps sell newspapers, but is beyond belief. She may become a candidate – an independent republican – but she will not be the official republican candidate and she is unlikely to win. She is the Ross Perrot of the 2012 election.

The US voters will not elect her President for five reasons. First, she is a quitter. She did not see out the last key employment contracts she has entered into, either as Mayor or as Governor.

Second, she is ignorant of world affairs and economics. Just read her Facebook entries and listen to her speak of economic issues and options.

Third, she has no credibility on the international stage. However popular the idea of a President focusing inwards on the economy may be, the reality is that improving the US economy requires a global effort and real strength in economic diplomacy – not something for which Sarah Palin has any credibility.

Fourth, she is a polarising figure. You either love her, find her amusing but dangerous, or hate her. This means that there will not be enough popular support for her to secure the votes needed to beat either the official republican candidate or a sitting US President.

Finally, she is a “foot in mouth” politician. If you wait long enough, she will destroy her own ideas through her own efforts. Just ask her about what she reads or what she understands about fiscal easing and she will put her foot in it. She will, of course, blame others – she is never to be accountable for her own actions – and look at the situation she herself created as if it is a meteor from another planet.

She will increase her profile throughout 2011, make more money, court the right people on the right and be seen frequently enough to fuel speculation. But a serious Presidential candidate? Never.