The Transforming Education Summit, Abu Dhabi May 8-9

I am attending a summit meeting focusing on the future of education (the Transforming Education Summit) – its in Abu Dhabi. Speakers include former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, my colleagues and friends Andy Hargreaves and Pasi Sahlberg as well as J C Couture (with whom I have just published a book). Facilitating is the BBC broadcaster and writer Tim Sebastian, a fellow Cardiff graduate.

What will be discussed is the global educational reform movement (which Andy Hargreaves and Pasi Sahlberg refer to as the “GERM theory of educational transformation” – a parody of the germ theory of disease).  This involves the view that improving educational achievement requires school systems to embrace market driven competition, standardized of both curriculum and assessment so that the market can reasonably assess performance of schools, freedom of school choice with funding “following the child”, system wide accountability with consequences for poor performance (fiscal discipline) and the leveraging of technology to reduce costs. The focus for learning in the GERM should be so-called 21-century skills (which are no more than the skills schools have been based on since Socrates).

The problem with the GERM model is that its driven by policy based evidence – there is little to support the idea that these fundamental tenets work or that where they have had modest success on a limited scale that they are transferable to whole systems or to different contexts (read different nations). It is rather similar to the economic pursuits of the World Bank, described by Naomi Klein in her excellent book The Shock Doctrine.

What is clear is that such GERM systems increase inequity. For example, if we use the distribution of family income measure (GINI Index) as an indicator of social progress for which education is intended as a driver, then those countries which have done more to promote GERM have greater inequality now than they did some years ago. The United States, which is pushing GERM hard (with help from the Gates Foundation, Pearson and others), has a GINI score of 45 (2007) – up from 40.8 (1997) – a GINI score of zero indicates total equity and a score of 100 greater inequity. It is possible that educational strategy is a factor in increasing social inequality in the US and in other GERM countries.

There are alternatives to GERM. Finland is pursuing a relentless focus on what might be called the EARL strategy. It focuses on equity, assurance rather than accountability, relationships built on trust and compassion as the basis for teaching and learning and a relentless focus on the learner as the driver of the system. Finland has always ranked high on the PISA data (the OECD’s way of measuring school system performance) – usually number one. It is resented by many of the GERM ideologues since it defies their logic.

I suspect that there is also an emerging third approach, which Dennis Shirley (Boston College) has termed the “Pearsonalization of learning”, named after Pearson publishing, but we might more usefully call it PATC. It focuses on performance driven systems (using analytics to determine performance and remediation) with strong accountability mechanisms built in at every level of the system with technology being used to deliver educational services and analytics with the aim of lowering of the costs of service. Some see GERM as embracing PATC, but it is also a distinctive strategy in and of itself.

During the next few days (the summit goes from 8^th to 10^th) I will report briefly on the conversations and ideas. It will be interesting to see what happens. The good news is that one of the featured jurisdictions that is engaged in transforming its schools is Alberta, hence the several Albertan’s here. Lets hope the new Minister of Education to be announced tomorrow (Tuesday) will keep the momentum moving.

Goodbye Sarkozy and the Fiskalunion

The defeat of Sarkozy and the change of political colours in Greece will lead to major challenges for the European Union.

What really is going on here is not simply left-right politics and the defeat of the shock doctrine of austerity. It is a statement that the people need to be involved in critical decisions which affect their future. The grandstanding of Merkel and Sarkozy and their arrogance (remember the Merkozy reaction to the idea of a Greek referendum) distance the euro-elites from the people they represent. The fiskalunion, which is a recipe for serious conflict in Europe, will lead to further dislocations and distances between the people and those who represent them.

As President Hollande of France will discover, unravelling the consequences of the fiskalunion agreement will be difficult. Merkel will want to stick to her guns and the markets will react negatively to a tax and spend agenda. France has already been downgraded and could see its credit rating fall further - it has to borrow casts amount so that it can sustain its debt payments during the coming year.

Seeking to change the banking regime in Europe is critical - there are still many vulnerable banks. Hollande wants a different role for the European Bank and wants the stability fund massively increased. Few amongst the technocrats in Europe will support this agenda, though they are signalling a willingness to add growth to their thinking about what needs to happen.

But how can austerity be matched with growth ? It can't. The real solution here is to encourage several countries to leave the Euro. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy would all be better able to manage their economic future if they could pull more of the levers of their own economies. The fight to save the Euro is at the heart of this crisis. This is not something anyone is willing to talk about.

Austerity is the wrong strategy. What is needed is a combination of fiscal independence, tight fiscal management of government spending, focused investments in infrastructure, innovation, a systematic attempt to lower energy costs and a relentless focus on job growth.

This will be an interesting year for the EU. We can expect further tensions and conflicts. Watch this space.

(Read more about these issues in my book Rethinking the Future available on Kindle and at lulu.com)

Alberta's Dull Election

Alberta’s election has caused some excitement. The potential routing of a party that has held on to government for forty one years, the ramblings of a Christian pastor running for office repeating what the Catholic church has said for years (that homosexuality is a sin and will result in hell unless the sinner repents), odd comments which the liberal left have interpreted as racist – all good media fun. There has also been excitement about strategic voting and the media seem infatuated with the idea of a minority government in which Raj Sherman (until recently a senior conservative but now transformed into a liberal) or Brian Mason (the thinking man’s thinking man) could hold the balance of power.


Facebook, twitter and You Tube have been deployed to fear monger, bring to life whispers and rumours and help drive some energy. Advanced polling numbers look strong and there could be a turn out higher than the all time low of the last election in 2008, where just 41% of the voters could summon up enough energy to get off the couch and vote – down 5% from four years before. If turnout is higher, then at least the media hoop-la has served a purpose.

What has not been talked about are critical policy issues, at least by the two main parties. We do not know what the real strategy for economic development and the oil sands looks like from the Wild Rose and only have vague hints and clues from the Conservatives. We have some suggested additions to health care from the Conservatives and some tweaks to the system from the Wild Rose, but no substantial debate. On education, the Wild Rose policy document makes clear that we are in for major changes – massive reduction in the size of the Ministry of Education, substantial change in how funding occurs, competition for schooling and more charter schools and massive changes in assessment. All we have really seen from the Conservatives is a promise of more schools – more of the same. No substantial debate.

I ran a constituency fight during the first general election of February 1974 in the most marginal seat in Wales (there were two general elections that year). The Alberta election has been a cakewalk in comparison to that general election. There were stories that some Labour cabinet Ministers were in the pay of the KGB, sex scandals around leading figures on both sides (orgies, homosexual trysts, bestiality), wild statements from candidates north, south, east and west and policy gaffes that were simply outrageous. We had homophobic, anti immigrant and racist candidates for whom this was their platform. We also had the pleasure of a candidate from the Monster Raving Looney Party whose platform included “the environment – let’s get rid of it! Its too big and difficult to keep clean!”.

So when I look at the Alberta election and the great brou ha ha over odd comments, I see it all as pretty dull. Albertans need to get out more and see more of the world. They need to see raw politics. There is more mud slung at a single sitting of Prime Ministers Questions in the UK House of Commons than we see in a year of politics here in Alberta. If the most exciting thing that happens is a Christian pastor’s blog repeating what Catholic priests told me virtually every day at school (an all boys school) then we are in trouble.

A great election in Alberta would involve substantial, meaningful debates about policy and programs. It would involve a systematic media analysis of the issues with conversations about these platforms with those most affected by them. It would involve us looking not just at the leaders (another media preoccupation), but at the front bench and caucus and to understand what the composition and dynamics of government will be like. While there has been some attempts at this, leader-envy and fascination have got in the way of a serious understanding of Alberta’s future and the role Government should play, if any, in that future.

When I taught high school we ran a mock election. One of my special needs students said to me as we were counting the ballot papers, “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in”. She is likely right. There will be all sorts of commentary on Tuesday morning of next week as pundits and the literati try and make sense of what happened at the election the day before. But campaigning and governing are different things. There is an inertia in government that is overwhelming and a dynamic in caucus that is inhibiting.

Whatever happens, Alberta will be fine. It’s a resilient place that has handled all sorts of governments over the last forty one years conservative, wild rose like, liberal. As my therapist told me “the situation is hopeless, but not serious”. Get used to it.

Alberta, Education and Politucs - Redford Loses the Plot

Easter is a time for reflection and in Alberta we need to start reflecting on the nature of our democracy, the role of government in each of our lives and the strategy we need our government to follow on our behalf with respect to our future.

The Progressive Conservative party`s educational policy appears to being developed on the fly. Tax credits for teachers, a $2.4 billion investment in capital infrastructure are interesting, but marginal developments in relation to what is critically important. The quality and professionalism of teachers, the focus for learning and curriculum, the nature of public assurance and accountability and the flexibility of schools to make meaning for their own students through personalizing the curriculum connecting to community and the flexible use of resources are far more critical issues. Also key will be the strategy and resources for the inclusion of those who need special support for their learning.

The PC party`s website “policy” section leaves a lot to be desired. It basically just says that the party intends to let parents have a stronger voice in education. It doesn’t say that they will seek a long term settlement with teachers which will enable the profession to become much more engaged, school to school and classroom to classroom, in the design and development of learning. It doesn’t say anything about rethinking accountability, provincial testing and teacher education. It says nothing about the relative role of Government, school boards and school leadership in decision making. It is vague beyond belief.

This is not surprising. The retail politician and hairdressers nightmare, our Minister of Education (Hon. Thomas Lukaszuk), doesn’t really have a strategy, other than seeking to satisfy his need to be on television, radio and in newspapers. He has a limited understanding of the opportunity which Alberta has to lead the developed world in innovative curriculum and assessment, to create the right conditions under which we can enhance the quality of teaching through an investment in professional development and time for preparation. His preoccupation with small things and avoidance of large things suggest a kind of strategic phobia.

Meantime, the Wild Rose, who could well form the next Government of Alberta, want to reduce the overly bloated Government Ministry (some 700+ people) and reallocate these resources to schools, strengthen the power of school boards to make decisions (nothing is said about the bloated bureaucracies in several school boards), encouraging competitive markets and the development of Charter schools and letting funding follow the child (a scheme that has yet to show any indication of improving performance of students or the school system). They also want to enable innovation through innovation experiments in outcome based learning (focusing on what the student can do rather than time or process), replace provincial achievement testing with assessment intended to support and enable learning but still using standardized tests (with widespread performance reporting) and ensure social inclusion.

The Wild Rose have a strategy which is clear and explicit. While I find some aspects of this puzzling – the competitive elements, the use of standardized tests as a basis for continuous assessment of learning – it has many elements many of have campaigned for. The PC party used to have a strategy to transform education in Alberta and to position Alberta as a world-leading jurisdiction for teaching and learning. Under Redford, they seem to have lost the plot.

Educational Transformation in England - Disaster in the Making?

Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education in England and Conservative MP for Surrey-Heath, is quietly presiding over the biggest transformation of schools in England since the comprehensive reform program of Harold Wilson’s governments in the 1960’s. There are now 1,529 academy schools (including 45% of all public secondary schools), fully outside of local government control, compared to 200 when the Conservative-Liberal coalition came to power in 2010. They've been joined by 24 “free schools”, set up by parents, charities and other groups also outside of local democratic control. In January 2012 the for-profit Swedish company IES UK was awarded a £21m, ten-year contract by Gove to manage a free school in Suffolk - to be known as IES Breckland. As the New Statesman magazine observes, “competition, choice and autonomy are the watchwords of the Gove education agenda”.

His strategy is to seek to restore the traditional educational curriculum, reduce inequality and raise the overall standards of schooling. He is also gradually “de-nationalizing” (read privatizing) the public education system. The dismantling of the General Teaching Council, the Training and Development Agency for Schools and the Support Staff Negotiating Body can all be seen as evidence that England's school workforce is being made more manageable, less professional and cheaper. Given that people costs represent 80% of the costs of the system (approximately), lowering these costs is a pre-requisite for profitability.

The New Statesman reports that confidential documents on the coalition's outsourcing reforms, drawn up by senior civil servants and released under a Freedom of Information request in July 2011, reveal how private providers of public services such as education "will compete on price but quality may suffer" and notes how greater choice and competition require "provider exit as well as entry, but exit of providers (eg, school closure) may be controversial and unpopular".


Why Reform?

Gove begins with the view that “rich thick kids do better than poor clever children when they arrive at school [and] the situation as they go through [schooling] gets worse”, with the system favouring the advantaged over the disadvantaged and the performance gaps are increasing. His solution to this is to focus on standards, choice and competition so as to drive up performance. He sees little role for local democracy in this work.

He also notes Britain’s poor showing on international assessments, especially PISA and suggests that it will take more than a decade for the results of his reforms to be fully evident in these assessments. It’s a safe bet that he will not be Secretary of State for Education in 2022 if indeed his party is in Government at that time.

“Back to the Future” Reforms?

In a November 2010 Government White Paper, The Importance of Teaching, Gove declared reforms would include the compulsory study of foreign languages up to the age of 16, and a shake-up of league tables in which schools are ranked higher for the number of pupils taking GCSEs in five core subjects: English; mathematics; science; a language; and one of the humanities. He also announced that targets for educational outcomes are to be introduced for primary schools for the first time. His curriculum reforms seek to restore the study of Shakespeare, Keats and other “greats” to English studies and demands a stronger focus on the more rigorous teaching of science, technology and mathematics. He is also reforming vocational education, downgrading a great many courses. From 2014, the Government will remove GCSE-equivalent status from 96% of the vocational qualifications currently available to students in England. The 125 courses which retain this status will be only worth up to one GCSE each – some are currently worth two or more.

Additionally, trainee teachers will spend more time in the classroom, there would be more assessment of teacher training applicants—including tests of character and emotional intelligence. Teachers are also expected to receive guidance on how to search pupils for more items, including mobile phones and pornography, and when they can use force. He accuses teachers of grade inflation and is seeking to make school assessments and public examinations more rigorous. Teachers would be freed up through a radical reduction in the size of the obligatory part of the national curriculum, but would be expected to achieve continuous improvement in outcomes over time.

Schools will be considered to be "underperforming" if fewer than 35% of pupils achieve five good GCSEs (those graded A* to C). Currently, the level is 30% and, based on 2009 data, the change would mean 439 schools would be classed as underperforming. Mr Gove has already announced extra funding to allow struggling schools to be taken over by successful heads. He has also warned that he is ready to use powers enshrined in the Academies Act passed in 2010, to force such schools to become academies under new management, including private sector companies.

So What?

Despite their best efforts at gaming exam results, the latest GCSE data shows academies performing worse in most cases than their community school counterparts. The same goes for the much-vaunted corporate-run Swedish and US schools the coalition is so keen to emulate. A forthcoming IPPR survey of the international research underlines the fact that both that non-commercial schools outperform for-profit providers and that the competitive private education markets favoured by the UK coalition Government are not a route to better results.

In her review of my colleague Pasi Sahlberg’s book Finnish Lessons – What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland, Dianne Ravich notes that:

“No nation in the world has eliminated poverty by firing teachers or by handing its public schools over to private managers; nor does research support either strategy. But these inconvenient facts do not reduce the reformers’ zeal. The new breed of school reformers consists mainly of Wall Street hedge fund managers, foundation officials, corporate executives, entrepreneurs, and policymakers, but few experienced educators. The reformers’ detachment from the realities of schooling and their indifference to research allow them to ignore the important influence of families and poverty.”

Some of the people behind these reform efforts in the UK were formerly responsible for the state of UK public education. For instance, propelled Zenna Atkins from chair of the UK’s schools' inspectorate OFSTED to become chief executive of the private Wey Education, now setting up free schools. Sir Bruce Liddington, former schools commissioner, is today director general of the private academy chain E-ACT. The £2 billion education service sector is about to get a lot bigger, with no impact likely on educational outcomes for the poor or those disadvantaged by geography.

Evidence driving policy is clearly not something we are likely to see here. The Secretary of State himself shows his ignorance frequently – recently attributing the laws of thermodynamics to Newton. He also claims Alberta is a role model for many of the reforms he is pursuing, when in fact Alberta would not recognize these reforms at all – almost all schools in Alberta are public schools, administered by elected school boards (see a great film exposing Grove’s false claims at http://teachfind.com/teachers-tv/autonomy-choice-and-competition?current_search=Alberta).


Its time to demand quality public education, professionally managed by highly skilled and professional teachers and administrators, locally overseen by democratically elected Boards with a focused curriculum. Its time for us to give schools back to teachers.

The Six Starting Points for a New Renaissance

These are challenging times. Whether its the shifting fortunes of the Eurozone, uncertainty about power and democracy in the middle east, concerns about sustainability with nine billion people expected to occupy the planet by 2050, these appear to be difficult times.


What is in fact happening is that we are in the "in between" times between two major patterns of socioeconomic reality. One pattern, now coming to the end of its natural cycle, is one in which a major super-power dominated economically and militarily, established institutions like the IMF, World Bank and UN were able to steer the world in an direction the dominant powers could support and the global economy functioned well in the interests of the wealthy and the growing middle class. The emerging pattern is one in which power is shared between a number of different interests - China, India and sometimes Russia balance the interests of the US and the EU, as we saw with the vote at the UN concerning Syria in early February 2012 - and the "old" institutions appear no longer "fit for purpose". The relative power and authority of the US, not to mention its economic strength, is changing as other countries strengthen their economies and secure growth.


But there are other changes which are important in that they are shaping the shift from the old paradigm to the emerging frame which we will use to understand the world in which we live. Six particular patterns are shaping this new reality, each will be described briefly here. As we think about each, the challenge is to see them as opportunities for a new enlightenment - a new renaissance.

Demography is not destiny, but it is clearly shaping a great many issues in the developed world. Canada, for example, has a birth rate below replacement as do many countries in the European Union. What this means is that fewer people will be in the workforce and able to support those too young or old to work or unable to do so. It also means that immigration becomes the source of new labour and the sustainability of the economy, with implications for culture, community, identity and values. As many will live longer, thanks to advances in regenerative medicine and social conditions, strains will be felt in health care systems and on personal wealth. It will be the best of times for communities and the worst of times.

Economies are changing dramatically. US sovereign and public debt and unfounded liabilities exceed $210 trillion while private indebtedness stands at $14 billion. Growth has stalled in many parts of the world and there are various forms of economic crises, ranging from the challenge is sustaining the Eurozone, the UK's failure to tackle growth and fiscal responsibility to the slow down in the rate of growth of both India and China. The rosy millennial forecasts now look not just like "cockeyed optimism", but wishful thinking. We are looking at a sea change in how the global economy functions.

Power is shifting. From the continued fall out from the Arab Spring, to new power alliances over climate change which have emerged post-Copenhagen and new roles for the BRIC economies, we see the dominance of the US in decline and the rise of issue based coalitions. There is no post-Washington consensus. The weakness of the military performance by the US led coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan are also signals that "all is not as it once was". What is clear is that power is uncertain and major challenges to the stability of regions - Syria, Iran are examples- show that power and authority are now diffuse.


Sustainability and the balance between human activity and the well being of the planet remain delicate issues, but are shaping strategies for energy, transport, innovation, growth and development. With seven billion people living on the earth and two more billion expected by 2050, we need to get smart about our life style expectations, social corporate responsibility and leadership. It is clear that using guilt as the basis for encouraging action - the thrust of the climate change movement - has led to only modest and insignificant changes in behavior. But a focus on the opportunities created by population growth and making the innovation challenges of sustainability an imperative could enable adaptation and change. Whatever happens, we need to change our behavior so that we can feed, shelter and support sustainable lifestyles for nine billion people - a major challenge.


Technology has enabled major change. Technology enabled flash mobs to staged the overthrow of corrupt governments, is the engine of the global economy, the reason so many people will live longer and the new way in which people meet each other for marriage. Whether it is regenerative medicine which is using stem cells and related technologies to regrow organs or restore function to failing organs or information technologies which are changing the way education is delivered in countries that are unable to build and staff schools, technology has been transformative and disruptive. The book, music, travel, banking and communications businesses are changed forever. The ways we manufacture goods using robotics or undertake police investigations using new forensic tools are all indicators that technology is having an impact on the day to day lives of billions of people. And we haven't seen anything yet if technology futurists are right. Technology will continue to disrupt.


Identity is changing. A young boy of seven in a small remote village in the Canadian Rockies explained to me that he had 149 friends, only six of whom lived locally. His other "friends" lived in eleven countries. With some surprise he told me that his French friends knew a lot of French and could help him with his French homework! But this story masks an issue. He is in fact very lonely and disconnected from his local "real" world while highly engaged in a virtual world. His identity is not rooted in reality, but in the world of Facebook, Twitter and computer games. He has not spent time playing actual games like football, baseball or hockey but does play basketball online with friends in Germany. I was seeing him because, as a psychologist, I was a point of call for his depression and anxiety. Identity is also a challenge for those immigrants recently arrived in a new country who are trying to come to terms with different cultures and social expectations, not to mention values and beliefs. Identity is a growing challenge in the new paradigm.

Making Sense of the In Between Time

These six patterns of change are the drivers of the shift to the new paradigm. They are leading to new economic realities, new power balances, new cultural realities within communities and a new focus on sustainability. It would be easy to be pessimistic - the natural state for those who dislike change and would prefer to cling to the past than to leapfrog to the future.


What would help is if the future were clear - a vision and understanding of the innovation expedition it will require for us to "arrive" somewhere on the S curve of the new paradigm. But this vision is elusive and unclear, with many articulating a bleak view of the future.


The renaissance was like this, at least according to Jacob Burkhardt’s Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1878). It was an “in between time” with many seeing the rise of individualism, the new economic reality of States and the decline of feudal power as a paradigm shift. Renaissance thinkers saw the opportunity and created new approaches to politics, new institutions, new forms of art and literature, new ways of thinking. They leveraged emerging technology to make things happen and they found centres of excellence which became lighthouses for what the future held. This is what is needed now.


There are developments which suggest elements of a new renaissance emerging. From the RSA's academy in Tipton, the Eden Project based in Cornwall, remarkable experiments in pairing seniors with young children to promote literacy, new technologies for personal health management, plans to build carbon neutral cities and communities, new forms of energy being found and exploited as well as advances in social engagement and the occupy movement - all are signs that people are reaching out to the next paradigm.

A vision of a sustainable planet where nine billion people have access to water, food and shelter and are able to live a life that they find has meaning so that they can give meaning to the lives of others through compassion and social action is worth pursuing. A vision for enlightenment, focused on leveraging our innovative capacity to respond to challenges as opportunities rather than threats is a mission worth pursuing. A strategy aimed at lowering barriers to the sharing of ideas, understanding and knowledge so as to accelerate development and give more people the chance to live meaningful lives is a strategy we should support.


These are the elements of the society we are working towards, but it will be a messy journey. We can expect conflict driven by scarcity, envy, ideology and misunderstanding. We can expect an increase in distress before we see an increase in hope. We can imagine mist-steps on our journey to a different future. What we can't expect is to go back.


The great baseball legend Yogi Berra once famously said "the future isn't what it used to be". He was right. We should take comfort, then, from Dan Quayle's belief that "the future will be better tomorrow".

*This talk was given to a meeting of Canadian Fellows of the RSA held in June 2011 in Vancouver. Dr. Stephen Murgatroyd, PhD FBPsS FRSA is a writer, management consultant and entrepreneur based in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.*

Rethinking Ontario

Ontario is experiencing a major shift in its demographics, economy and is challenged with some key environmental issues. It is in fact a Province in transition.

Many see this transition in terms of a downturn – Don Drummond, in a major review of Ontario’s finances, suggests that its time to rethink what Ontario is and what it wants to become. He also suggests significant changes to the role of government in this new Ontario world.

Rather than seeing these challenges as a threat and trying to cling to a view of the past as a basis for the future, we might want first to understand the challenge and then understand what the opportunity is.

In a speech in Sudbury this week, I outlined these challenges for Ontario:


Demographics

• Demographic change 1: Population: Ontario’s birth rate is below replacement. The annual rate of growth of Ontario’s population is projected to slow gradually over the period 2011-2036, starting at 1.2 per cent in 2010-11 and moderating to 1.0 per cent by 2035-36. For replacement, the fertility rate needs to be in the order of 2.1. Ontario is thus dependent on immigration for its socioeconomic future. Ontario normally receives app. 125,000 immigrants each year, though this number showed a slight decline in 2011. Ontario also has a fast growing First Nations Community,

• Demographic Change 2: Rural Decline: A related, but distinctive, feature of Ontario’s demography is the concentration of the population in urban regions and the relative decline of the rural population. In 2000, just 15% of Ontario’s population lived in rural communities (down from 19% in 1980). Some rural communities are growing (e.g. Brant, Halton), but many are shrinking or have “stable” populations.

• Demographic Change 3: Ageing Population: Over the past 50 years, the percentage of Ontarians over the age of 65 has increased from 8.4% in 1956 to 13.6% in 2006. The Ministry of Finance, Ontario Populations Update, 2009 - 2036, indicates the number of seniors aged 65 and over is projected to more than double from 1.8 million (13.7% of population) in 2009 to 4.2 million (23.4%) by 2036, almost 25% of the population as a whole. The number of Ontarians aged 15–64 is projected to grow from 9.2 million in 2010 to 10.7 million by 2036. This age group is projected to decline as a share of total population, falling from 69.4 per cent in 2010 to 60.5 per cent by 2036. Seniors are also living longer, placing pressure on health care and social services.

• Demographic Change 4: The War for Talent: Ontario competes with other jurisdictions for available skilled and professional workers. The Conference Board of Canada has noted that the province faces a shortage of more than 360,000 skilled employees by 2025. This will further escalate to a shortage of more than 560,000 skilled employees by 2030. One key opportunity here is the fast growth of First Nations communities – and the availability of a significant and growing number of aboriginal young workers. The challenge is to ensure equity in their access to and success in education and training to enable them to play their role in the emerging economies within Ontario.

• Demographic Change 5: Economic Impact of an Ageing Population: Labour-force growth is a key determinant of economic growth. Population aging and the slowing pace of growth in the working-age group could contribute to a slower rate of future real gross domestic product (GDP) growth. As the provincial population grows by 28 per cent by 2030 and the senior population more than doubles to account for over one in five Ontarians, government spending, particularly on health care, will come under increased pressure. Average per-capita health spending by the provincial government is about three times higher for seniors than for the population overall.


Economics

• Economic Challenge 1 Economic Growth and Inflation: Real GDP growth is now forecast at 1.8% for 2012 and may fall lower due to recessionary forces operating globally (especially in Europe). Downward revi¬sions are affecting GDP over the following two years as well. Inflation in Ontario is app. 3.1% - inflation is running ahead of growth.

• Economic Challenge 2 Shifting Focus for the Economy: Ontario’s economy is primarily a service economy, with 75% of its GDP coming from the service sector. Its manufacturing base is 15% and falling. Manufacturing exports (especially motor vehicles and parts and mining) remain key to the Province’s economy.

• Economic Challenge 3 Productivity: In 2010, the average Ontario worker worked 1,670 hours, while at the median of the US states, the average employee worked 1,830 hours. This gap of 160 hours, or 4.3 weeks annually, widened slightly from 2009, when Ontario trailed the peer median by 150 hours weekly or 4.1 weeks. In 2010, our intensity gap equated to $4,100 in GDP per capita. Ontario businesses have under invested in machinery, equipment, and software relative to their counterparts in the United States, so that the capital base that supports workers in Ontario is not as modern as that of their counterparts in the peer states. As a result, Ontario workers are not as productive. This under investment in capital equipment lowers Ontario’s productivity by $1,000 per capita. Overall, GDP per capita is significantly lower than many US jurisdictions – Ontario’s GDP per capital is $45,600 versus a median of $54,200 in the US and a high of $71,200 (New York).

• Economic Challenge 4 Unemployment: The total available pool for employment is 7.3 million persons (total population is 13.37 million). Unemployment (Jan 2012) is at 8.1%. Ontario’s unemployment rate is forecast to average 7.5 per cent in 2012 and 6.9 per cent in 2013, down from 7.8 per cent in 2011.

• Economic Challenge 5 Trade Balance: Ontario imports ($315 billion) more than it exports ($304 billion). Small trade deficits, a negative balance, are generally not viewed as being a great threat to both the importing and exporting companies. However, if these small deficits continue to grow and expand then problems could be encountered. A key related challenge here is that 79% of all exported goods go to a single market (the US), with the implication that shifts in demand and the economy of that market could have significant implications for the economy of Ontario. Less than 1% of goods are exported to China.

• Economic Challenge 6 Government Debt and Deficits: Ontario’s 2011-12 deficit is estimated to be $16.0 billion. Ontario’s net debt is now $238.4 billion – 37% of GDP. Some consider the debt : GDP ratio high, but it is in fact within the guidelines recently adopted for healthy economies by the EU. The challenge is whether the debt can be seen as related to investments in Ontario’s future (e.g. education, infrastructure) or operational expenditure (e.g. most health care costs). The deficit and debt numbers do not include the unfunded liabilities of the Government of Ontario, such as the (app.) $12.2 billion Workplace Safety and Insurance Board liability or the $13.4 billion in debt for energy related costs.


Government

• Government Challenge 1 Spending Exceeds Revenues – The Ontario Government anticipates revenues from taxation, investments, royalties, transfer payments and other arrangements to be $108.2 billion in 2011-12. However, it intends to spend $124 billion (20% of GDP) in this same fiscal year – creating a deficit (after using $200 million of its reserves) of $16 billion and leading to a net debt position of $238 billion (37% of GDP).

• Government Challenge 2 Spending on Health and Education Growing: Spending on health and all forms of education (K-PhD), including all day kindergarten, accounts for 65% of the budget of the Province. At the end of 2010, government health spending accounted for 49.5 per cent of Ontario’s total available revenues; compared with 41.5 per cent in 2000/2001. Health spending will continue to grow at a rate of 3% per year.

• Government Challenge 3 Reducing the Rate at Which Spending Grows: To cut deficits and repay debt requires either a significant increase in revenues (either through tax increases or significant economic growth) or reduce spending by reducing or eliminating services. The strategy the Government of Ontario is pursuing is to limit the rate of spending growth to 1.7% and to seek to eliminate deficit budgets by 2017-18 – something seen as optimistic by most forecasters and analysts, with the Conference Board suggesting that the balancing of the budget may take as long as 2020-21.

Energy and Environment

• Energy and Environment Challenge 1 Costs of Energy Rising: Ontario's electricity system is undergoing a major transformation. Much of the electricity transmission infrastructure is old and in need of refurbishing, most of the nuclear capacity is nearing the end its lifetime and Ontario has made a commitment to shut down its coal-fired power plants. The Ontario government has indicated that the province's rates will rise 46 per cent by 2015. Energy poverty is already real for some and it will grow as a challenge.

• Energy and Environment Challenge 2 Green Energy Strategy: Ontario is seeking to green its energy system, partly in the name of climate change mitigation and partly in the name of creating “green” jobs. The Government suggests that some 50,000 green jobs will be created over three years, in part through subsidies for green energy production. Jan Carr, the former President of the Ontario Power Authority, completed a study of the economic impacts of Ontario's Green Energy Act and found that each so-called 'green job' would result in a taxpayer subsidy of $179,000 per job, per year.

• Energy and Environment Challenge 3 Managing the Impacts of Climate Change: Rising temperatures, longer growing seasons (4-7 weeks longer in Southern Ontario), more extreme events, negative impacts on biodiversity, less ice on lakes making them accessible for more weeks of the year, less healthy forests and possible impacts on human health have all been suggested as climate change impacts for Ontario. The climate change “ledger” will have positive impacts and negative ones.

The In Between Time

There are also other patterns at work. I suggest that this is an inbetween time – a time between two ages. Such a time looks like this:

•

Transition from a post modern/information age to a biotech/robotic age
• Transition from an age of abundance to one of austerity
• Transition from an age of “me” to an age of “who am I?”
• Transition from the text to the tweet and from an age of newspapers to one of sound bits and digi-clips
• Transition from a robust, rich US dominated world to a declining/ weak US disengaged world with China holding sway
• Transition from a community oriented society to a “self” oriented society
• Transition from established and meaningful global institutions to the G-Zero world

This could be messy. But it could also be an opportunity. It could be the beginning of a new renaissance, as individuals, groups and communities redefine their future and their world.

The New Renaissance

The medieval renaissance in Italy looked like this:

– Challenges to generally accepted boundaries of thought and action
– Redefining of who had power/authority
– Realignment of the power of the church and state
– Exploration, innovation and cultural enrichment
– New technology (printing)
– Reinvention of “self”
– New forms of expression – new forms of art, music, drama, poetry

The 21st Century renaissance could have these characteristics:

– Realigning of social, political and economic boundaries
– Power shifting in terms of social democratic movements and the fractionation of politics
– New forms of religious beliefs and a new secularism
– Innovation, technological disruption with social consequences (e.g. social media, biotech, robotics)
– Reinvention of “self” and “followership”
– New forms of expression – social media, new forms of music and art, drama, film..

So rather than seeing Ontario as a “problem child” in need of care, why not see Ontario as the home and starting point for a Canadian led renaissance. Make it so – let the journey continue!

Rethinking Health Care

Health care and education (K-PhD) costs are equal to 65% of the expenditure by the Government of Ontario. Unless something changes, health care costs are anticipated to rise by 3% each year while education will grow at between 1.5% and 2% - all below inflation. Costs aside, Don Drummond in his major report on the future of Ontario observes that the outcomes derived from health care spending do not match expectations and that such spending for such outcomes means that the health system is unsustainable in its current form.

His point is simple. Ontario, like most jurisdictions, does not have a health care system. It has health care “bits and pieces” which operate in parallel, sometimes at cross-purposes and are poorly connected. Time, money, skills and energy are wasted by patients, staff and administrators in a system which is no longer fit for purpose. “We could do better”.

The issue is only partly about costs – it is more about design and systems thinking. The challenge is to create a system that reduces the need for medical care by focusing on the public and personal determinants of health and well-being: healthy lifestyles, healthy communities and good quality water, air and environment. The challenge is to rethink health care: throwing more money at the current system will only make matters worse, not better.

The same debate is taking place in England and Wales. The British parliament is debating The Health & Social Care bill which, if enacted “as is”, is intended to:

(a) integrate front line health care into primary health care clusters managed on a regional basis;

(b) reduce complexity and administrative burdens within and on the system by focusing more resources on patient care than on reporting patient care;

(c) enable local GP’s to commission services from the “system” on behalf of and with the involvement of their patients – the GP becomes the broker of all health services, rather like a travel agent – pushing decisions to the front of the system (the GP) rather than to the back (the hospital);

(d) create a stronger public and private market for the services which GP’s buy – still free at the point of care to the patient (unless they chose to pay);

(e) the work of the system will be overseen by five separate bodies, looking at different aspects of systems performance;

The politics surrounding this Bill are a mess. Its one of the worst examples of reform and change seen in a long time and has very few supporters, even within Government.

They key problem, it seems, is that it does not begin with an evidence based analysis of the system as is nor does it articulate a clear vision of what might be – we simply have ideologically driven reform, badly handled with little engagement and consultation with those who will be most affected. Failure is predicted.

But we do need to rethink health care to put more emphasis on prevention, public health and personal responsibility. We do need to design an integrated system of care driven by patient need, not structure. We do need to train our professionals to work closely together and respect and fully use the skills of, say, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, rehabilitation therapists and those who work in eldercare.

We also need to find alternative strategies to reduce the incidence of self-induced illness – obesity and its related consequences, smoking related cancers, addictions and other life-style choices. We need to rethink health care.

In doing so, we should not look to the UK current reforms as a prescription for a healthy care system.

A Clear and Present Danger - A Minister of Education

A Minister of Education, a former teacher, who does not understand schooling and the need for the transformation of schooling is a clear and present danger to society, its economic competitiveness and to the future of literally thousands of young people. But it can happen.

A Minister who does not understand that by teaching less, students can learn more through their project based learning and engaged co-creation of knowledge is a dangerous Minister. Just because teaching has changed since this Minister gave up the profession doesn’t mean we have to go back to how it was.

A Minister who sees time on task for teachers as more important as quality learning through school based curriculum is a dangerous Minister. Such a Minister does not understand that centralized curriculum which specifies what and how students learn is no longer the “right” solution to the challenges of todays classroom. What is needed are teachers, using a Provincial framework for learning outcomes, developing curriculum which has meaning and value to the students in their classroom now. This takes preparation time for quality learning.

A Minister who has been seduced by the technology vendors into thinking that Wi-Fi on school buses and more technology in classrooms is a dangerous Minister. There is no compelling evidence that, after spending close to $2 billion on technology since 1998 in a single Province, learning outcomes have changed or improved as a result. Indeed, by focusing on enhanced classroom driven learning that makes use of the talents and professionalism of teachers as well as the willingness and enthusiasm of learners is likely to be a better investment than Wi-Fi on school buses, iPads for every child or a Smart-Board in every classroom.

A Minister who is not sure that replacing standardized tests with a focus on quality assurance is a dangerous Minister. Standardized testing for all students at certain grades is, at best, an expensive distraction and, at worst, a recipe for stagnation. The tests tell us little about learning and even less about teaching. Some politicians think they are tests of teaching quality. Some think they determine school outcomes and should influence resource allocations. Most of us know that they are like a Kodak-moment taken in the dark on a windy afternoon. What we need is a refocus on assessment of student learning which can influence learning outcomes. In terms of public assurance, we need a system of public assurance, built around school development plans, sampling of students and experimental and research based evidence.

A Minister who doesn’t understand that the key to success in any school system are highly engaged and satisfied teachers working with students who feel highly engaged in their learning is a clear and present danger to our education system. The best predictors of student outcomes are teacher satisfaction and student engagement. A Minister who is seeking to minimize the former and ignore the latter is a clear and present danger to the system. Good solid work on rethinking curriculum is being abandoned in the name of expediency, popularism and the ambitions of the Minister.

Education matters. It matters because all of our future depends on more smart people with high level skills, especially in the trades and in the creative and imagination professions, being in more places in our workforce. We need creative, team playing, mindful and productive citizens with keen literacy skills, skills in critical thinking and a passion for design to enter all trades, professions and areas of work. We need them now.

A Minister who stalls true educational change and transformation is a danger to the future prosperity and well-being of a community.

Watching Paint Dry in Iowa

I painted a small watercolour and am now watching it dry. Sorry, no. I am watching CNN and the results of the Iowa caucuses come in. Maybe I was right the first time.

What a dull election this is going to be. We have forty four weeks of numbing bullshit to get through before the actual election. Unless something remarkable happens, Obama will secure a second term, even though he does not deserve one and the Republican party will make gains in congress, further stifling real change and growth for some time.

Gone are real politics. You remember. There were real issues in which true ideological and moral differences were debated. When policy mattered. When true choices were not between who flip-flopped more or who is more entertaining, but on issues.

Character features a lot in the commentaries. But this is a spill-over from Entertainment Tonight and Dancing with the Stars. Kennedy was a character and it was well known around the media that he was “putting it about” (as we Brits say) – did it matter? Nixon was a character first time around and while this played out second term, everything he did was a straight line from his well known past. Bush II was a well known dumball, but he got elected once and was judged the winner first time around. Carter..well I think the point is clear. Right now, character plays second fiddle to anyone with courage, determination and policy.

By policy I don’t mean intention or a general desire. I mean an action plan. Obama won a Nobel Prize for having intention. Means nothing. What the world needs is someone with policies, courage, conviction and determination.

I don’t see anyone on either side of the house with these qualities. Time to get my brushes and watercolours out. I will need them. It will be a long and very dull forty four weeks.

More Evidence of Peak Renewables

EU carbon prices fell to their lowest ever level on Wednesday - €6.41 ($8.64) as the euro currency and equities slid on renewed fears over Eurogeddon and oil prices slipped after producers promised to maintain high output.

Meantime, Solon SE, the Berlin-based solar panel builder, filed for insolvency after failing to reach an “amicable solution” with banks and investors. It is likely to be followed by several others, both in Germany and elsewhere as the demand for panels softens as subsidies are removed, reduces or revamped. Even a decision by the German government earlier this year to phase out nuclear energy has done little to reignite the sector.

We have already seen bankruptcy filings in the United States, most notably panel maker Solyndra LLC and Evergreen Solar. Conergy and Q-Cells were among the German solar companies most exposed to the sector’s crisis. Q-Cells, once the world’s largest maker of solar cells, is now struggling to meet refinancing needs and took steps earlier this year that may delay its convertible bond that is due in February 2012. Conergy was rescued late last year after agreeing a debt-for-equity swap in December which would give control to hedge funds Sothic Capital and York.

More evidence of peak renewables – see my earlier posts.

Fiskalunion, Überhaupt Nicht

The Merkozy Settlement – the deal struck last Friday for fiskalunion in Europe – is beginning to fall apart. The markets are signaling their distrust of the last minute deal and no amount of rhetoric will cover over the cracks already appearing in the arrangements intended to shape the future of Europe.

It began when Ireland made clear that, since the loss of sovereignty was so serious, a referendum may be required so as to confirm their ability to sign onto an arrangement. Since no text of an agreement was available last week – first ministers signed onto an idea, not a specific document – much will depend on language and first principles. Other countries - Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic and Hungary – are also indicating that they are having serious second thoughts. These four countries are not in the Eurozone.

The Independent (UK) also reports that there are significant tensions in Eurozone countries, including Germany, France, Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands over precisely how the fiskalunion will work. French opposition leaders and emerging candidates for the French Presidency, up for election next year, are signaling that they are deeply disturbed by some aspects of the deal. In Germany, the resignation of Christian Lindner, the general secretary of the Free Democrats, the junior partner in Ms Merkel's coalition, also signals tension.

So the end result may well be fiscal union, not at all (überhaupt nicht). This may be a good thing in the long term, since the deal does not address the core economic issues faced within Europe. In the short term, however, it will be very messy both in terms of debt management but also politically. Eurogeddon, the phrase I used yesterday to capture the essence of what is happening, seems even more appropriate today than yesterday.

Eurogeddon

Markets are not always smart. The initial reaction to the EU26 “fiskalunion” agreement last week was positive for no intelligent reason. That agreement is a great mistake. The Merkel-Sarkozy Accord (known as the Markozy Settlement in some circles) will make economies worse in Southern Europe as austerity and punishments are imposed, which will slow or impair growth. The accord, which is to be administered by unelected officials, limits the democratic rights of citizens, does not stimulate growth or deal directly with trade imbalances and is a recipe for conflict, tension and dissent. Britain is smart. It is not part of this, though to listen to the British politicians criticizing David Cameron, you would think that not joining in on the march to Eurogeddon was something to be regretted.

The accord does not deal with the vulnerability of banks in Europe, the need to stimulate spending by citizens and governments nor does it address the decline of manufacturing and the lack of growth in some key sectors of regional economies. Indeed, by requiring larger payments into the stabilization fund and the IMF from certain countries, it will actually increase public sector borrowing requirements and likely spur downgrading of the bonds which will be used to raise the funds. Overall, it’s a very bad deal for Europe and a bad deal for the worlds financial system.

So why did everyone except Britain agree?

The conventional wisdom of crowds did not occur here. Instead, we have the behaviour of the herd, made worse by the fact that decisions were being made in the middle of the night. Groupthink led the agreement, with most led to believe that this was the only choice – the last option on the table.

They had previously suggested raising the stabilization fund to $2 trillion, but no one could find the money. They even asked China to help, who politely but firmly said no.

They had asked the US for help, which came in the form of support for the liquidity of the banking system by the injection of funds into the exchange system used by banks to fund debts.

They had suggested a Tobin tax on bank profits – still likely to occur, despite Britain’s veto. This will boost the stabilization fund, but will simply provide more bailout funds for more failing economies.

They had suggested other measures throughout the period since the beginning of the year when the crisis began in earnest.

All to no avail. What they will now do is shrink the Eurozone, with some countries likely to default and began the slow Argentinean like march to recovery. They will start to address Germany’s trade balances and they will start to form serious audit processes for national economies and find ways of stimulating growth.

One suggestion being seriously floated by economists is for “helicopter money” – grants of funds to households to stimulate purchase behaviour. Cash for clunkers was an example. Cash for green home renovation is another. They make the point that the only real option is stimulus.

So lets now watch as Britain begins its journey to growth and Europe does what it does best. Screw up.

Time to Renew Our Public Service

We look to auditors to do more that audit financial statements. They are also accountable for ensuring that the processes used to create financial expenditures, risks and liabilities are diligent and follow due process. So when the Auditor General of Ontario draws attention to some challenging questions about the Provincial green strategy, we should pay close attention. You can read the report in detail here: Electricity Sector—Renewable Energy Initiatives (Ministry of Energy) (pdf 596kb).

Most commentators have looked at the implications of this systematic, thorough and generally devastating review in terms of green energy and the strategy of support for renewables. I have argued elsewhere (and some time ago – see earlier blog) that we have arrived at “peak renewables” – the point at which renewable energy supports have peaked and where governments gradually or dramatically retreat from their green agenda so as to deal with the real economy. I invoked the Pielke Law that states that economic challenges and reality will trump climate change mitigation every time.

But there is another aspect to the Auditor General’s (AG) report which is troubling. It is the role the public service played in the development and execution of this green “strategy” (sic).

The public service is intended to be a voice of reason, caution in public policy development. They are the route to systematic and thorough analysis of options, ideology independent and not subject to political pressure, either from their own Minister and the governing party (or parties) or from lobby groups and special interests. This means that public servants, at all levels, execute their daily functions in a way that best serves the Crown. For some observers, impartiality means the prudent management of administration. For others, impartiality involves advice that is based on a range of aspects and considerations and that may include information that the minister or the government of the day does not want to hear. In these instances, public servants must remember that they have a responsibility to provide information on policies and programs, but are not expected to, nor should they debate the merits of policy decisions made by the government. Once a decision is made, however unfortunate that may be, the task of the public servant is then to implement that decision in an efficient and effective way.

Ministers are meant to exercise decision making (preferably based on evidence) having been provided with systematic and thorough advice from the public service. They may choose not to follow advice, to ride rough-shod over that advice, but Ministers need to cherish both the quality of that advice and its independence from their agenda and ideology. The more they shape the advice they receive to ensure it fits with the predetermined intentions, the less useful that advice is likely to be.

So now let us to turn to the report and its implications. In its thirty four pages it catalogs these issues as they relate to the public service:

1. No systematic business cases were developed before or after decisions were made about renewable energy to evaluate impacts on either costs or environment. The AG says that this is because the Ministerial directives were clear and explicit – the task was the implement and deliver, not analyze and review. Issue: surely cost benefit and lifecycle environmental impact assessments are part of the delivery process even if they were not, as they should have been, part of the decision making process?

2. So as to accelerate delivery of a Ministerial decision, decisions were made to suspend the review of the energy plan submitted by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), on which they had already spent $10.7m and involved a major consultative process, and replace the OPA plan with a Government Long-Term Energy Plan which was based on enacting Ministerial directives. Issue: when did a Ministerial plan become, by definition, better than a plan developed by a process defined in law and involving public consultation? At what point does a process laid out in law become suspended by fiat? What advice did the public service provide to the Minister here?

3. The Minister determined to operate a feed-in-tariff and ended their Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program (which was over-subscribed). The Minister then resisted all efforts to control and manage the feed-in-tariff so as to “maintain investor confidence” – this despite the repeated advice of the OPA to control the feed-in tariff. Issue: what advice was the Minister given by how own staff with respect to the advice received by the OPA?

4.Contract negotiations with a Korean consortium were conducted by the Ministry and a payment of $437 million was agreed (later reduced to $110 million) in addition to the Feed in Tariff, making it one of the most attractive incentive green energy deals on the planet. The justification of this was that there were substantial “made in Ontario” requirements for parts and labour built into the agreement to stimulate job creation, despite the fact that no economic analysis and no business case was ever developed. No were relevant authorities – notably the OPA and the Ontario Energy Board – consulted or canvassed. The AG makes explicit that normal due diligence processes were not followed (page 108) and no formal cabinet approval was obtained for this contract. Issue: what on earth was the public service doing? How could such a major activity be undertaken by the public service without due diligence and necessary approvals?

5. The reality is that the transmission grid is already close to capacity. The AG suggests that some 10,400 MW of power available through renewables is “stranded” and cannot be accommodated on the transmission grid as it exists (see page 91 of the report). This affects 3,000 feed-in-tariff holders who are being paid for producing power which no one can use. Issue: At what point did the public service document the smart grid challenges of green and renewable energy in a way that may have affected decision making? The AG report does not indicate what advice Ministers were given with respect to this issue, which is non trivial.

One could go on - this AG’s report being one of the best reads of a formal document for some time. But the point is made: we have a problem, well in fact several.

The first is the policy arrogance of the political elite. They can talk up green energy powerfully and make it sound like it is a solution. Yet we know, and the AG points out, that rising energy costs due to green energy actually increases unemployment. For every green job created, it is likely that two others are lost in other sectors leading green energy to be a source of net job loss. We do not know, because the advice to Ministers is not subject to freedom of information requests, what the advice was but the suspicion is that the focus was upon enacting Ministerial decisions rather than caution, systematic analysis of consequences and ensuring due diligence. The Ministerial response hints at this throughout the AG document.

The second is the lap-doggedness of the public service. Having worked on this file early on in its development, the alignment of public servants with the Ministerial policy was clear: green was right, coal was wrong; CO2 was bad, wind power was good and so on. That is, there were few, if any, voices who were skeptical of the claims of the green energy lobby or of the climate change lobby. Yet it is a part of the work of the public service to be skeptical, especially when a policy decision could lead to unemployment and increased energy poverty, as it is doing in Ontario and has done in other jurisdictions (Britain, for example). An impartial service needs to demonstrate this for every policy, not just for those for which it has n ideological disinclination.

In another context, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is subject to some ridicule as a credible body precisely because it has been hijacked by a clique and a lobby. A recent study by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise makes clear just how much influence certain environmental groups have over the work and reporting of the IPCC. She found that substantial claims made by the IPCC in the name of science were in fact argued from non-peer reviewed sources by environmental lobbyists. Large numbers of contributors to their major reports were directly linked to organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); five out of ten contributors to one chapter have a formal, documented link to WWF, 28 out of 44 chapters of the report included at least one individual affiliated with WWF. The all-important Working Group 1 chapters of the 2007 report, the scientific foundation of the report, contained 431 references to non-peer reviewed material. In the complete report 5,587 references were not peer-reviewed (30 per cent of all references) of these, only six were flagged as such. Sources used to support IPCC assertions were newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished Masters and Doctoral theses, Greenpeace and WWF documents as well as press releases.

By the end of March 2010 it had been shown that at least 16 claims of impending climate doom in the IPCC’s key 2007 report had been based on work done by environmental activists, most of which had not received independent reviews before being presented as “fact” by the IPCC. For instance, the IPCC’s insistence that up to 40% of the Amazon rain forest was under imminent threat came from a World Wildlife Fund-International Union for the Conservation of Nature joint report written by a scientist-consultant and a freelance environmental journalist.

These revelations do not inspire confidence in an organization that claims to be, and is portrayed, as basing its conclusions on peer-reviewed literature. This is an especially important example of the pattern we are drawing attention to here, since these lobby based presentations have led the world to create a $100 billion annual fund to be transferred from developed world to the developing world to compensate for the impacts of climate change; has led to major economic disruption in the worlds energy system with a focus on green energy and renewables; major expenditure on climate change mitigation running into trillions of dollars.

The AG’s report on the green strategy of the Government of Ontario also suggests that we should now question the veracity of the public service and its role it this debacle.

But I have a suggestion. In Britain, there is a process by which public servants involved in a process can file their objections to a Ministerial decisision – e.g. on the Feed in Tariff – without fear of punishment. They record the basis of their objection and attach analytic material to justify their objection. Then they get on and do what the Minister has instructed. Once the Government changes (after an election), then the objections are made public. After the fall of the Government of Gordon Brown, for example, the Daily Telegraph reported that:

“…ministers overruled civil servants on spending plans on at least four occasions since the start of 2010. Advice from officials was ignored on a further nine occasions in 2009. This compared with just five occasions in the previous three years. Three quarters of these objections were on the grounds of value for money”.
The Public Service Commission encouraged and enables the filing of such information so as to protect the integrity of the service.

We should also end the payment of bonuses to public servants. As the gap between public sector benefits (pay and pensions) widens in comparison to the private sector (in favour of the public sector), the bonus schemes based on assessments informed by Ministerial opinion (whatever the process map says), this is no longer an appropriate way to compensate public servants. Productivity generally in the public service appears to be either flat or falling – we need to rethink the rewards and supports so as to improve performance, increase job satisfaction and attract and retain smart people.

Finally, we should make it very clear that public servants serve the Crown not just the current Minister. A career public servant of thirty five years will likely serve between fifteen and twenty Ministers. They represent the interests of citizens on an inter generational basis. They should be trained to do so. An investment in professional development is a key to this, but so too is the training of Ministers into the effective use of a public service.

I have the privilege of working with many public servants closely. I have the greatest respect for those who chose to serve in this way. But I have watched their morale and commitment ebb and flow as their work is de-professionalized and degraded. It is time to unleash their talents in productive ways so that we can have better, smarter polices and much better government. The Ontario case makes clear that this is urgent.

Durban: Deal or No Deal?

The climate deal at Durban is dead on arrival. It is a deal to talk about a deal for an eventual deal. It is full of loop holes, get out of jail free cards and vague language – it had to be to secure approval of countries who basically have no intention of changing their behaviour.

The deal, such as it is, commits the parties to begin negotiations now for a deal to be done by 2015 to create a legally binding deal to come into effect in 2020. The deal keeps alive the Kyoto protocol as a legally binding framework, but Europe will be the only group of nations bound by it – Canada, Russia and Japan are pulling out. The US, China and India were never in. The new framework, yet to be fleshed out, requires all nations to curb emissions, but the developed nations at a faster and deeper cut than the developing nations. China has signalled repeatedly that it will not subject itself to external legal monitoring, but the language of the deal struck in Durban is sufficiently vague to permit them to suggest that the legal framework will be national, not international. So – no universal target, no universal legal framework, no universal commitment. Some deal.

COP17 – the seventeenth conference of the parties – was intended to settle the post-Kyoto question (just as COP15 and COP16 were). It is clear that this process is broken. The Durban agreement has kicked the ball down the road in the hope that the next three conferences can settle what the last seventeen have not. Some deal.

The science advocacy movement supporting the manmade global warming theory has already condemned the agreement reached at Durban as not enough, not serious and calamitous for the planet. It will do little to limit temperature rises to below +2C, little to move the world to a post-carbon economy and little to provide support to those countries who claim to be deeply impacted by the impact of climate change. Dr. James Hansen, a profiteer science advocate campaigner and the so-called “father” of the manmade global warming theory, thinks we have missed the tipping point and it is now likely too late to “save the planet”. Some deal.

Kyoto is dead de facto, if not de jure. The international community has shown, once again, that it is not capable of dealing with transformative challenges. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that international mechanisms for dealing with threat, challenge or change are increasingly “broken”. Anyone who thinks that the Durban agreement is a breakthrough or a substantive development needs to read the text of the agreement carefully. It is vague. It doesn’t deal with the $100billion a year fund – how the money will be raised, managed, distributed – or with the independent monitoring of performance. Some deal.

Canada is right to distance itself from all of this. We should, however, now demonstrate our own commitment to reduce emissions and shoulder our environmental responsibilities in a world-leading way. Waiting for Kyoto2, like Waiting for Godot, is a pointless task. It would be better for us to be responsible, environmentally leading global energy superpower. We should strengthen Alberta’s carbon emissions regulations and increase the cost of CO2 offsets; develop a market based ecosystems service regime that is the envy of the world and focus on shifting our energy system to natural gas or renewables. Its time for Canada to show how a different approach to sustainability can make a difference. After all, we need to do this to sell our energy systems and natural resources to the world. Now that’s a deal.

In Support of David Cameron

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, did the right thing for the wrong reason.

Last week the EU27 agreed to what is now known as “fiskalunion”. Governments agreed to give up their sovereign rights to determine taxation, expenditure and fiscal management to a supranational body in exchange for stabilizing Europe and settling the markets. In addition, they agreed to enhance the funds set aside to stabilize the economy – hundreds of billions – and to increase contributions to the IMF. Countries will submit proposed budgets for approval prior to their acceptance and will then be monitored by a supranational body and be disciplined if they fail to live up to commitments made. Germany, for example, breeched such existing fiscal rules some sixty times since 2000 and France some ninety times. They would both be “disciplined”.

This is being done as a response to the fiscal crisis of the Eurozone. But interestingly, it actually does not address the real economic issue. In fact, it is likely to make things worse.

The underlying economic problem is complex. But at its heart it is simple: there is a lack of growth. Some countries, especially the Southern Mediterranean countries, are lacking in growth, especially in export driven industries. Others have large trade surpluses. Some countries have significant debts (Greece for example), but others are in surplus (Italy and Ireland). No one size fits all. By imposing a solution aimed at some countries (Greece) on all, even countries who are doing well (Germany), the EU will make things worse.

It’s a very Germanic solution – discipline and control focused on austerity. Austerity will increase unemployment and further slow growth, as Britain has already seen. What is needed is a strategy for innovation, stimulus and employment. Any country pursuing this, and willing to increase debt to do so, will be punished under the new regime. It makes no sense.

Countries will find themselves unable to determine their own tax and spend regimes – the heart of a national economic agenda – and will be in constant dispute with each other and the EU. One of the leading objectors five years from now will be France, who has a habit of talking big but actually being a deviant when it comes to obeying the EU law. Conflict will be fuelled by this compact and the EU has created conditions for the subsequent fracture of the European union.

So Cameron should have said no on three grounds. First, Britain wants to make decisions about its spending, taxation and economic strategy in Britain, not Brussels. Second, fiskalunion will not solve Europe’s problem – what is needed is a more subtle, complex approach. Third, in the medium and long-term, fiskalunion is a recipe for the fracturing of Europe. While fiscal discipline for the Eurozone is a part of what is needed, the application of fiscal discipline does not deal with trade imbalances, lack of political discipline, productivity and innovation and the ingredients of a growth strategy.

Hanging his decision on protectionism – trying to protect the City of London against a tax on banks and financial transactions – was a mistake. His use of the veto wasn’t.

The End of The Kyoto Accord

COP17 – the climate change talks taking place in Durban with 20,000 delegates, journalists and hangers on from 194 countries – will see the end of the Kyoto agreement.

The European Union, its delegation led by Poland, is demanding that any extension of Kyoto involve India, China and the US and these nations have said that they will not sign on to Kyoto. Further, Russia, India and Canada have said that they are backing out of Kyoto. It’s dead. There will no longer be a legally binding agreement with respect to CO2 emissions, not that much enforcement of the existing treaty ever took place.

Furthermore, the EU is hardening its position. Angered by suggestions that the EU is not doing enough with respect to climate change (a remarkable suggestion, in the view of the EU, which sees itself as having done more than North American nations and more than any other bloc of nations), the EU is also getting tough on the conditions under which funds from the fund established in Copenhagen could be distributed to developing nations adjusting to the impact of climate change. Canada is also taking this position – its not a gift fund.

Canada is taking a rational stance. It is backing out of Kyoto, challenging the conditions of the climate change fund and suggesting that there needs to an adaptive response to climate change rather than a reinvention of the global economy. It is also not buying the orthodoxy of the “science is settled” and is questioning the way in which the IPCC is operating. This is angering many at the gathering, who accuse the Canadian government of being in the pockets of the oil companies.

What is being proposed is that there be a break in the process – COP18, 19 and 20 will likely take place but work towards a global agreement that will be completed three years from now to come into effect ten years from now. In political terms, lets worry about this two US Presidents from now.

The activists are angered by this and suggest that this delay will make responses to climate change more difficult and less likely to occur. Correct. This is in fact the “cunning plan” which the major Governments of the world are proposing. The message is not subtle. It is “we are done with this”.

The primary reason for this stance is that there are more pressing issues: sovereign debt, a double dip recession and 250 million unemployed (with 1.5 billion with vulnerable jobs) being uppermost in their minds. When given a choice between fundamental changes to the economy required by Kyoto or dealing with the immediate challenges of sovereign debt and economic recession, Governments go local and seek immediate responses. Just yesterday the UK government downgraded its climate change strategy and gave up the protection of its set aside £1 billion for carbon capture and storage. Other governments are backing away from guaranteed feed in tariffs on the grounds that the spike in energy costs are killing jobs, increasing energy poverty and making no real difference to CO2 emissions anyway. They simply do not have the risk capital or the ability to raise it for such an unsure outcome.

The second reason is that the costs of the changes to energy policy, transportation, building codes and other changes required to meet the Kyoto targets are not justified by the returns on these investments. As the shrill science dampens and the uncertainties of the science become clearer, the massive costs of a transition to a post-carbon economy are clear, but the returns are not. If Canada were to cut its emissions dramatically, would this impact global CO2 emissions in a significant way? Not really – China and India would soon make up for the difference. Without a level playing field with all engaged, the impact of unilateral actions are modest, at best. When the science begins to suggest that the impacts are less than we first thought and that there are growing uncertainties about the science, then Governments are not going to risk their capital on improbable outcomes.

The third reason Kyoto is dead is because there is an abundant supply of energy. New technologies for natural gas extraction, oil shale extraction and enhanced oil recovery have pushed the likelihood of “peak oil” (really, peak carbon based fuels) back some fifty to a hundred years. The urgency of action was in part driven in the past by the fear of oil prices moving to unaffordable levels. Advanced in fuel efficient transport, low cost natural gas and new technology have changed this part of the equation. A post-carbon future is no longer an urgent imperative.

None of this is helped by the furtive behaviour of a clique of scientists revealed in Climategate I and II or the rejection of critical voices at COP17 and similar events. The cult like pursuit of climate change policies by deceptive methods – Al Gore comes to mind – makes it less likely that rational policy decisions and conversations take place. The response to serious and mindful criticisms by Canada and the EU are examples of this cult-like devotion. While some saw a UK court decision to see climate change as a religious cult in 2009 as an amuse, it is in fact a correct diagnosis.

So COP17 will end with nothing but emissions and the end of Kyoto. Expect more of the same for the next four years.

The Republican Pantomime Season

There are just five weeks to go before the Republican primary season begins in earnest, though many must feel that the race for the Republican nomination has been going on for a life-time. Things are now getting serious. By the end of January, the race will have slimmed and the real candidates will be in the frame.

Gone will be Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain and John Huntsman. The first two will get the message that this is not a Christmas pantomime and we don’t need a “Widow Twankey” and a “Buttons” character playing the stage for comedic effect – it’s not Puss in Boots. Huntsman, who is the serious candidate and probably the most mindful of the entire cast of characters currently on stage, will not be able to raise the funds to continue.

Other candidates will survive the first act of the drama of the primaries, but will not make the final curtain. Ron Paul, a true conservative and, at 76, the oldest actor on stage, will not make the cut. The media all but ignore him and the judgment of the party overall will be that he could not beat Obama. Rick Perry will last for a time as the character who is both serious, funny and, at times, ridiculous. While he may be a solid Governor of Texas, he is not Presidential material. Never mind not being smart enough to remember his own lines, he doesn’t actually get the plot.

At the front of the stage will be Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, neither of whom will make great Presidents. Newt because he doesn’t know when to stop and think before he speaks (foot in mouth disease strikes him from time to time) and Romney because he flops, flips and flounders. While Romney is younger, smoother and less prone to fluffing his lines, he actually is a dull actor and a poor interpreter of the role. He doesn’t have much to say.

What would be wonderful is if the producers and directors of this drama – the Republican grandees – do what they did with Eisenhower. He was recruited to run part way through the season, since they soon realized that no one on the stage at the time could carry the performance and win an ovation at the end of the play. Then it was clear that Eisenhower was the actor they needed to fill the part no one way playing on stage. Now it is not at all clear who they could turn to. Serious, skillful, successful conservatives are hard to find. It may be time to call Rudi Giuliani, former Mayor of New York, into the theatre and say “want to join us in the third act?”.

Cop Out at COP 17

It seems clear that Canada will not renew its commitment to the Kyoto accord. It does not make sense to do so, since neither will the US, Russia or Japan and most of the major polluting countries (India and China, for example) did not sign up in the first place. Kyoto is dead, or at least on its last legs (it will die of natural causes next year if it is not renewed).


Also dead is any major agreement on climate change mitigation for the world coming from the Conference of the Parties (the 17th such gathering) meeting in Durban. The EU has made clear that it will sign up to any binding emissions targets unless all of the major polluters also agree. Since this is not going to happen, the move now is to postpone any attempt to reach a global agreement till 2015, coming into effect in 2020. Even this assumes that an agreement can be reached, which is also unlikely.


Meantime, the science is changing. It is become less certain - more recognition of uncertainty and less acerbic. For example, a recent paper in Science lowers the estimate of CO2 impacts while the IPCC s suggested that extreme weather impacts are less affected by human induced climate change than other factors.


Overall, climate change is moving down the political agenda as the challenges faced by Governments, especially in Europe, are more focused on economics, jobs and debt. The Pielke Jnr. law – climate change mitigation always takes second place to economics – seems to apply, as governments back away from past commitments.


So the 20,000 people gathering in Durban from 194 countries to discuss climate change will focus on money - the commitment made in Copenhagen to transfer money to the most affected nations, especially the small island nations. And that tells us a lot. It’s all about money, at least for some.