Category Archives: Resource Based Economy

Californias Great Red North is the opposite, a vast, rural, mountainous tract of pine forests with a political ethos that bears more resemblance to Texas than to Los Angeles. Two-thirds of the north is white, the population is shrinking and the region struggles economically, with median household incomes at $45,000, less than half that of San Francisco.

Jim Cook, former supervisor of Siskiyou County, which includes cattle ranches and the majestic slopes of Mount Shasta, calls it the forgotten part of California.

In the same state that is developing self-driving cars, theres the rugged landscape of Trinity County, where a large share of residents heat their homes with wood, plaques commemorate stagecoach routes and the county seat, Weaverville, is an old gold-mining town with a lone blinking stop-and-go traffic light.

The residents of this region argue that their political voice is drowned out in a system that has only one state senator for every million residents.

This sentiment resonates in other traditionally conservative parts of California, including large swaths of the Central Valley, which runs down the state, and it mirrors red and blue tensions felt in areas across the country. But perhaps nowhere else in California is the alienation felt more keenly than in the far north, an arresting panorama of fields filled with wildflowers and depopulated one-street towns that have never recovered from the gold rush.

People up here for a very long time have felt a sense that we dont matter, said James Gallagher, a state assemblyman for the Third District, which is a shorter drive from the forests of Mount Hood in Oregon than from the beaches of San Diego. We run this state like its one size fits all. You cant do that.

Many liberals in California describe themselves as the resistance to Mr. Trump. Residents of the north say they are the resistance to the resistance, politically invisible to the Democratic governor and Legislature. Californias strict regulations on the environment, gun control and hunting impinge on a rural lifestyle, they say, that urban politicians do not understand.

The states stringent air quality and climate change regulations may be appropriate for technology workers, Mr. Gallagher said, but they are onerous for people living in rural areas.

In the rural parts of the state we drive more miles, we drive older cars, our economy is an agriculture- and resource-based economy that relies on tractors and trucks, Mr. Gallagher said. You cant move an 80,000-pound load in an electric truck.

A recently passed gas tax, pushed through by the Democratic majority, will disproportionately hurt rural voters, he said.

Taxation and hunting are two issues northerners are quick to seize upon when criticizing laws they feel are unfairly imposed by the state. But there are also more fundamental issues related to incomes and job opportunities that split California into a two-speed economy.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, unemployment rates hover around 3 percent. In the far north, where many timber mills have shut down in recent years, unemployment is as high as 6 percent in Shasta County and 16.2 percent in Colusa County.

Despite a go-it-alone ethos, residents of the 13 counties in the northern bloc are much more likely to receive government medical assistance than those in the Bay Area. In the north, 31 percent take part in Medi-Cal, the California Medicaid program, while the Bay Area rate is 19 percent, and Californias overall figure 28 percent.

United States Representative Doug LaMalfa, a Republican representing Northern Californias First District, blames regulations that have shut down industries for the economic disparities.

Theyve devastated ag jobs, timber jobs, mining jobs with their environmental regulations, so, yes, we have a harder time sustaining the economy, and therefore theres more people that are in a poorer situation.

Because incomes are significantly lower than the state average and the region is so thinly populated, tax revenue from the far north is a fraction of what urban areas contribute. In 2014, the 13 northern counties had a combined state income tax assessment of $1 billion, compared with $4 billion from San Francisco County.

Resentment toward the rest of California has a long history here there have been numerous efforts to split the state since its founding in 1850. After the presidential election, a proposal to secede from the union, driven by liberals and known as Calexit, gained attention.

Residents here have long backed a different proposal for a separate state, one that would be carved out of Northern California and the southern reaches of Oregon. Flags of the so-called State of Jefferson, which was first proposed in the 19th century, fly on farms and ranches around the region.

Jefferson, named after the president who once envisioned establishing an independent nation in the western section of North America, is more a state of mind than a practicable proposal. Many see it as unrealistic for a region that has plenty of water and timber but perhaps not enough wealth to wean itself away from engines of the California economy.

However, two recent initiatives have channeled the deep feeling of underrepresentation.

In May, a loose coalition of northern activists and residents, including an Indian tribe and the small northern city of Fort Jones, joined forces to file a federal lawsuit arguing that Californias legislative system is unconstitutional because the Legislature has not expanded with the population.

States

Population per House member

States

Population per Senate member

California

489,310

California

978,620

Texas

183,127

Texas

886,100

Florida

168,927

Florida

506,782

New York

131,972

Ohio

351,922

Ohio

117,307

New York

319,287

States

Population per House member

States

Population per Senate member

Wyoming

9,768

South Dakota

24,528

Maine

8,803

Vermont

20,868

North Dakota

8,052

Montana

20,659

Vermont

4,174

Wyoming

19,537

New Hampshire

3,327

North Dakota

16,105

The suit, filed against the California secretary of state, Alex Padilla, who oversees election laws in California, calls for an increase in the membership of the bicameral Legislature, which since 1862 has capped the number of lawmakers at 120.

The lawsuit argues that California now has the least representative system of any state in the nation. Each State Assembly member represents nearly 500,000 people and each state senator twice that.

This arbitrary cap has created an oligarchy, the lawsuit says.

By contrast, each member of the New York State Assembly represents on average 130,000 people; in New Hampshire, its 3,330 people for each representative.

Mark Baird, one of the plaintiffs, says residents of Californias far north feel as though they are being governed by an urbanized elite.

I wake up in the morning and think, What is California going to do to me today? said Mr. Baird, a former airline pilot who owns a ranch about an hours drive from the Oregon border. In a grass valley framed by low-lying hills, Mr. Bairds pastures are filled with his small herd of buffalo and a few pens of horses and donkeys.

Mr. Baird complains of restrictions on the types of guns he can own. Its tyranny by the majority, he said. The majority should never be able to deprive the minority of their inalienable rights.

Scott Wiener, a state senator representing San Francisco, says he has sympathy for the concerns of rural voters but rejects the proposal for a larger legislative body.

When you have a state as big and diverse as California, decisions are made that we dont all agree with, he said.

The second initiative is a proposed amendment to Californias Constitution that would change the method for dividing districts of the Legislatures upper house, the Senate. Instead of being based on population as they are now, Senate seats would be tied to regions, giving a larger voice to rural areas in the same way the federal Senate does.

I am asking the people with power to give up some of their power in order to allow all the voices in the state to have a little bit more strength than they do right now, said Mr. Gallagher, the assemblyman.

Northern Californians point out that the United States House of Representatives and Senate are based on the compromise between population and geography.

What I cant get over is that a court can rule that its not good for the state but it stands up at the federal level, said Mr. LaMalfa, the congressman. We wouldnt have a union if we hadnt come up with that compromise.

Mr. LaMalfa, who lives on a farm, says Californias urban denizens think of the rural areas as their park, and deplores what he describes as trophy legislation to protect animal species.

You have idealists from the cities who say, Wouldnt it be great to reintroduce wolves to rural California? Mr. LaMalfa said. He has a half-serious counterproposal: Lets introduce some wolves into Golden Gate Park and the Santa Monica Pier.

Doris Burke contributed research.

A version of this article appears in print on July 3, 2017, on Page A9 of the New York edition with the headline: The Great Red North of California.

Go here to read the rest:

California's Far North Deplores 'Tyranny' of the Urban Majority - New York Times

Saturday

Peace Lutheran Church, 1301 Ave. D: Ralph Sappingtons Country/Gospel Liturgy is featured during the 5 p.m. worship service.

United We Stand, Karin, Ryan and Dijana Gunderson in concert at Atonement Lutheran Church, 1290 Sierra Granda Blvd.: At 7 p.m., Heavenly Harp presents United We Stand, a concert by Karin, Dijana and Ryan Gunderson, a mother, daughter and son trio, to encourage people in these tenuous times. The concert features harp, piano, flute and vocals on popular and Christian pieces. For information, call 245-7004, or go to christianharpmusic.com.

Billings Association of Humanists meeting at First Congregational Church, 310 N. 27th St.: Ben Hahns presentation of An Introduction to a Resource Based Economy is at 1 p.m. The term and meaning of resource based economy originated with Jacque Fresco. It is a whole factor socioeconomic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude.

St. Johns Lutheran Ministries, 3940 Rimrock Road: Marcia Muir, staff chaplain, leads worship in the Ocee Johnson Chapel at 7 p.m.

Pilgrim Congregational Church, 409 36th St. S.: After the 9 a.m. coffee fellowship, the Rev. Steve Heppner leads the 10 a.m. worship service, themed God is worshiped for his authority over peace. Also, John Christian, of Billings American Legion Post 4, gives a patriotic Scripture reading, and Sharon Baldwin offers special music.

Peace Lutheran Church, 1301 Ave. D: Ralph Sappingtons Country/Gospel Liturgy is featured, and Paul Freeman gives a musical offering during the 10 a.m. worship service.

East Gate Wesleyan Church, 625 Mattson Lane: The Holy Eucharist is celebrated as the Rev. Kevin Jones, of Grace Anglican Church in Sheridan, Wyoming, leads the 3 p.m. worship service. Fellowship and refreshments follow.

St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, 180 24th St. W.: At the 9:30 a.m. worship service, the Rev. Susan Thomas preaches about transformation, using the texts Isaiah 61:1-3 and Mark 5:1-20, and the Lords Supper is shared with all who wish to partake. Thomas served as a hospital chaplain for many years at Billings Clinic. After the service, refreshments are served in the Garden Room.

Unity of Billings, 9 14th St. W.: At 10 a.m., the Rev. Danielle Egnew, singer/songwriter and interfaith minister, shares her message, "Fear as Our Teacher." Russ White leads the congregational singing of Daniel Namod songs. A potluck takes place after the service. Everyone is invited to share in food and fellowship.

First English Lutheran Church, 1243 N. 31st St.: Christs welcoming of all and the nations birth are celebrated at the 10 a.m. worship service. After the service, Independence Day is celebrated with ice cream bars, and a womens group meeting takes place.

American Lutheran Church worshiping at Moss Mansion, 914 Division St.: An outdoor worship service takes place at 10 a.m. Bring a lawn chair. (No child care is available for this service.)

Construction work at Billings Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 2032 Central Ave.: Billings Unitarian Universalist Fellowship is under construction. No services are planned until August.

American Lutheran Church, 5 Lewis Ave.: Family vacation Bible school is offered in three sessions July 12, 19 and 26. Each takes place from 5:30-7:30 p.m. and includes a meal, lesson, craft and games for the whole family. RSVP by emailing Rochelle Buyse at rochelle@amluth.org.

The deadline for submitting information for the Faith Guide is noon Tuesday for consideration for publication in the upcoming Saturday edition. The items should be special events open to the public and of interest to readers outside your congregation.

You may mail information to: Faith Guide; Billings Gazette newsroom; P.O. Box 36300; Billings, MT 59107. Items also may be faxed to 657-1208 or emailed to citynews@billingsgazette.com. Be sure to address faxes or emails to the Faith Guide. Or you may drop off your item at The Gazette, 401 N. Broadway; please mark it to the attention of Rachelle Lacy.

Items are used as space is available.

More here:

Faith guide - Billings Gazette

April is the cruelest month, so said the famous poet TS Eliot. But one wit remarked that June marks the end of May.

Who would have expected that British Prime Minister Theresa May would lose her majority in Parliament in the June election, which was supposed to strengthen her hand in negotiating Brexit with the European Union?

This expectation reversal was as big a shock as Brexit or Trumpism. May may have found her Ides of March in June. In sharp contrast, unlike earlier in the year when everyone was worried about France falling to populist rule under Marine le Pen, a fresh centrist candidate named Macron won, and was rewarded by a handsome legislative majority to carry out his promise to reform France.

In Bangkok this week to refresh memories of 2 July 1997, I was struck by how history seemed to rhyme in 10 year cycles. Next month would mark not only the 20th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, but also the 20th anniversary of the Asian financial crisis, when the baht was devalued.

2007 also marked the 10th anniversary of the US sub-prime crisis, which together with the European debt crisis, caused a decade of low growth for the advanced economies.

Initially, investors hardly noticed the tremors from the subprime crisis. On 19 July 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average touched a record high of 14,000. After an adjustment in August to 13,000, the index dropped below 11,000 on September 15, 2008, following the Lehman failure. It fell to a record twelve-year low of 6,547 on 9 March 2009, recording a 53.2 per cent drop over this period. Similarly, the Hong Kong Hang Seng Index also crossed the 20,000 milestone on 28 December 2006 and rose to the all-time peak of 31,958 on 18 October 2007.

A year later, it lost 66.6 per cent to a low of 10,676 on 27 October 2008. Ten years later, both indices have once again touched record highs, with the Hang Seng recovering past the 26,000 mark this month, whereas the Dow hit a record peak of 21,528 this week.

Because this rally is essentially tech driven, even the NASDAQ index has surpassed its 2000 tech bubble peak of 5,048 to hit a new peak of 6,305 on 2 June 2017. These market gyrations suggest that another consolidation may be reached sometime soon, except we do not know the exact timing and the trigger.

All we know is the there are many risks out there, including policy uncertainties from whether the Fed would continue to raise interest rates, the sudden re-appearance of inflation and possible geopolitical or natural disaster events.

So far, market worries about Chinas high leverage issues seem to have receded with the stabilisation of US-China relations and better performance at the growth level.

All in all, the markets have priced in so far almost all the Brexit and Trump fears and did not react too much to the recent normalisation of Fed interest rates. The stark reality is that no one knows for sure whether we are in over-priced territory or bubble zone.

The US economy appears to trundle along in reasonable shape, with unemployment numbers reaching new lows. All we do know is asset prices are at record highs, financed by historically high debt and abnormally low interest rates. In this zone of radical uncertainty, we are no longer sure that the GDP indicator reflects the true state of the economy. GDP measures the old resource-based economy well, but does not capture growth in a datadigital economy.

No economy reflects this contradiction more than China, which has shifted from being the largest assembler of the global supply chain towards a consumption and service-driven economy. Both consumption and services crossed 50 per cent of GDP levels, moving closer towards an advanced country pattern where consumption and services account for roughly 60-70 per cent or more of GDP.

If China succeeds in this historic transition, with the old resource-consuming industries, like coal, steel, energy, being phased out, even as the new internet economy trims the inefficiencies in the current Chinese distribution system, then China could break through her middle-income trap. But one recalls that South Korea achieved OECD status in December 1996, only to fall into the Asian financial crisis in 1997/8. Mexico did the same in 1994.

All countries go through growing pains, especially what Austrian economist Schumpeterian called creative destruction.

This transition creates massive winners and also losers. We see this pattern being reflected in the mixture of top Dow Jones index component companies, whereby the leading tech stocks are being priced to win, whereas the old energy, manufacturing and distribution companies are struggling to maintain their market share. Given these radical uncertainties, history is replete with the rise and fall of nations, as well as the rise and fall of companies.

It teaches humility in forcing us to think holistically on the broader trends, whilst sorting out the signals from the noise. Emerging markets in Asia today are facing what is called a middle income trap whereby they need to break through a pain barrier to rise to advanced income status.

Advanced and aging economies countries like Britain and Japan face the opposite, a high income trap where if major policy mistakes are made, a rich country may slide into stagnation and possible lower income levels. Ultimately, demographics and geography determine destiny.

Asia may face many growing pains and a complex operating environment from disruptive technology and excessive competition, including geopolitical rivalry. Western analysts disdain for Asian demagogues is now being haunted by their own demagogues.

Basically, in the midst of these complex transitions through mega-trends, there is also a governance transition. The millennial generation is rapidly taking over in terms of consumption lifestyle, innovation and governance style.

History suggests that it will not be a bloodless transition. Despite all such noise, we should do well to remind ourselves that Asia is still where there is still demographic and technological growth.

Lets see whether the next market adjustment will stall or disrupt that growth trajectory. Happy 10th and 20th anniversaries!

The writer, a former Central banker, is Distinguished Fellow, Asia Global Institute, University of Hong Kong.

Special to ANN.

Visit link:

As we enter a zone of uncertainty... - The Statesman

At the 11th hour and with state government teetering on the edge of a shutdown, the governor has stirred up a cloud of misinformation to distract the Legislature from its work. In his press statement from June 27 and again during a talk-radio appearance, Gov. LePage threatened legislators with a government shutdown unless they support his initiative to tax conservation land owned by land trusts.

Lets look at the facts. Already this session, the Legislature overwhelmingly defeated two bills designed to remove tax-exempt status from land trusts. Both bills were unanimously rejected in the Senate. Why? Because most lands conserved by Maine land trusts fully 95 percent are already on the tax rolls.

Moreover, eliminating land trusts eligibility for a property tax exemption will have little or no impact in addressing property tax concerns in Maine and will not help state lawmakers arrive at a balanced budget. The governors proposal will also not get the state to 55 percent in education funding or allow elderly residents to keep their homes, as he has claimed in the past.

Interestingly, earlier this session the Legislature unanimously approved a bill introduced by the conservation community to allow land trusts to make voluntary tax payments to local governments to support land holdings in rural Maine. This proposal offered the governor a chance to support legislation to ease the property tax burden on Maine landowners. Yet this bill went into law without the governors signature after sitting on his desk for 10 days.

As for the governors current proposal, the latest bargaining tool in the state budget discussions, it would affect fewer than 95,000 acres statewide, less than half of 1 percent of the state. And on roughly 20 percent of these acres the land trusts are already making payments in lieu of taxes. At the same time, the fiscal impact of eliminating the property tax exemption would be negligible.

For example, in legislative testimony in 2015, a licensed appraiser estimated that tax exemptions held by all the land trusts in Bath added roughly $1 per year to the property tax bill on a $300,000 home.

More importantly, the return on investment in land conservation greatly outweighs any costs.

There are examples in every corner of the state of land trusts benefiting their home communities. These conserved lands are an essential part of the foundation for Maines natural resource-based economy, our quality of life and the Maine brand. These lands guarantee access for commercial fishermen, protect working farms, ensure forests for forest products, create opportunities to hunt, fish, hike, swim, walk dogs, snowmobile and canoe, protect important wildlife habitat and serve as vital classrooms for students across the state.

Lastly, there is a growing understanding of the tax benefits generated by conservation land. The latest indication can be found in President Donald Trumps fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, where the president indicates evidence shows that (National Wildlife) Refuges often generate tax revenue for communities in excess of what was lost, by increasing property values and creating tourism opportunities for the American public to connect with nature.

With the important role that trust-conserved lands play providing access to hunters, hikers, birdwatchers, snowmobilers, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts one only needs to get out of Augustas Capitol complex to see businesses and communities enjoying similar economic benefits throughout the state.

Maine people love and support conservation lands. Through six overwhelming statewide votes in favor of the Land for Maines Future Program and generous private donations, Maine citizens have made these investments in the future of the state they cherish.

Conservation lands, including those held in land trusts, are a crucial component of our economy and a valued part of our Maine way of life. They deserve more respect than to be treated as an 11th-hour bargaining chip in budget negotiations that could lead to a government shutdown.

Tim Glidden is president of Maine Coast Heritage Trust, David Trahan is executive director of the Sportsmans Alliance of Maine and Kate Dempsey is state director of The Nature Conservancy in Maine.

Go here to see the original:

Maine Compass: LePage misinforms public in push to end land trust tax exemptions - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

New Delhi: India and the European Union on Friday agreed to strengthen cooperation in the areas of environment, resource efficiency andcircular economy under the EU's Resource Efficiency Initiative (EU-REI) for India.

Representational image. Reuters

At the eighth EU-India Environment Forum, hosted in Delhi, the necessity of moving to a resource efficient 'circular economy' wherein waste is reduced, or becomes useful input in others, or renewable inputs replace non-renewable ones, was discussed.

Union Environment Secretary AN Jha, who took part in the forum said India was preparing its own campaign to develop a resource efficiency strategy and experience sharing with European experts would be of immense help in this regard.

Astrid Schomaker, Director for Global Sustainable Development, Environment Directorate-General, European Commission said that market-based incentives and eco-innovation will create new and exciting products, services and job opportunities in India.

The Resource Efficiency Initiative (REI) project will be implemented on behalf of the European Union by a consortium led by Deutsche Gesellschaftfr Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Confederation of the Indian Industry (CII) and Adelphi.

The project objectives include assessment of India's current and future use of resources and to develop a resource efficiency strategy for India in four sectors - mobility, buildings and construction, renewable energy, and plastic and e-waste management.

The project also aims to foster business partnerships for knowledge and technology transfer between European and Indian industry and raise awareness of best practices in resource efficiency among businesses, the general public, and government and non-government organisations, an official statement said.

Go here to read the rest:

European Union to help India move to a resource efficient 'circular economy' - Firstpost

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his parliament office in Ottawa. Image: Flickr/Justin Trudeau

Call it an exercise in herding cats.

Only one year into the federal governments efforts to reshape Canadas environmental and regulatory processes surrounding resource development, and its already revealed a country deeply divided on how to assess environmental concerns with new projects and how to regulate industry to mitigate any issues.

The federal government launched its multi-department review last June after instituting a temporary system in January for projects already under environmental assessment. The goal is to replace the environmental assessment legislation put in place by Stephen Harpers Conservatives in 2012, while modernizing the National Energy Board (NEB), Fisheries Act, and Navigation Protection Act.

The rationale for the review is to restore Canadians trust in environmental assessments, said Catherine McKenna, the federal minister of environment and climate change.

Check out the latest Oilweek now for insight into Canada's oilpatch people, technology and trends.

The review of Canadas environmental and regulatory practices will ensure that decisions are based on science, facts and evidence, added Kirsty Duncan, the federal minister of science.

Over the last year, the government has been gathering submissions and holding public hearings to get input from Canadians across the country. In early April, the expert panel reviewing the environmental assessment process released its recommendations. A similar report concerning the modernization of the NEB was released in mid-May.

The preliminary results from the environmental review show the challenges of trying to balance environmental stewardship with industrial growth.

Views about federal environmental assessment across the various interests ranged from support to all-out opposition, the environmental panel said in its report to the government.

The view from industry

Industry was looking for a number of things from the review, including assurances that any new regulations wouldnt further harm the countrys competitiveness.

Canada is competing globally for capital investment in our oil and gas resources, and it is imperative for the Canadian economy that Canada remain competitive with other jurisdictions, Jim Campbell, Cenovus Energys vice-president of government and community affairs, told the task force on behalf of his company.

Campbell pointed to a recent study and survey showing the Canadian industry is falling behind competitors when it comes to competing for capital. Primary reasons cited Canadas decline include regulatory duplication and inconsistencies and complexity of environmental regulations, he noted.

In its submission to the task force, Suncor Energy, like most others from industry who offered input, said the federal review process should dovetail with, rather than overlap, provincial and local review processes. The process should, accent, not duplicate, provincial reviews, said Suncor. One project, one assessment. Duplicate reviews do not add additional protections and can add years to project applications.

The federal assessment should be a process to assess residual environmental risks in areas of federal jurisdiction, Suncor added.

Cenovus, with most of its primary assets in Alberta, agreed primary responsibility for environmental assessments should remain with the provinces.

Local regulators have the experience and technical expertise to best evaluate projects, work with local communities and perform follow-up monitoring and compliance, noted Campbell.

Campbell also said federal and provincial environmental assessment processes should be streamlined by allowing for substitution and equivalency agreements based on the principles of the best-placed regulator to do the work and a single-window approach.

When it comes to addressing First Nations concerns, Suncor said the federal government, rather than industry, must take a leadership role, pointing out that the review must ensure the Crown is upholding its duty to consult.

Proponents have the responsibility to support the Crown through direct engagement and partnership with affected communities, incorporating traditional knowledge through applications and developing projects in a sustainable manner, Suncor added.

The oilsands giant said the people and communities closest to projects should be at the front of the line when it comes to consultations in environmental assessments.

Reviews must allow those most directly affected by the outcome of a particular project to have the greatest opportunity to participate and have a voice in the process, it noted. Input from affected stakeholders can get diluted when the process is used for purposes other than gathering information on a specific project.

Suncor and other resource companies and associations also said they dont believe the review process should be hijacked by groups wanting to debate larger public concerns outside the boundaries of the project. Governments should first set public policy direction on these broader issues like climate change, and then the review process should ensure public policy standards are met.

The review process is not the appropriate venue for debating broader public policy, the company said.

Another key element for industry and provinces with resource-based economies in the review process was ensuring the designated projects section of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 remained in place. Projects including minerals mining (such as potash), linear developments (transmission lines and highways) that do not cross provincial boundaries, extraction of non-potable groundwater, in situ oilsands developments and natural gas facilities were removed from the list of projects requiring federal assessments in the 2012 legislation.

Removing these projects from federal [environmental assessment] review saved time and cost by greatly reducing unnecessary duplication of [assessments] and other regulatory processes, reducing red tape for proponents while maintaining robust provincial environmental safeguards, said the government of Saskatchewan in its submission. The province advocates for the exclusion of such projects from federal review, recognizing mature and effective provincial environmental regulatory review processes.

Green groups, First Nations look for greater participation in process

While industry looked to streamline the environmental assessment process and provide certainty to investors, environmentalists and First Nations looked for greater input into the process and for the federal government to expand the list of designated projects that require federal approval. Many also requested a climate test be included in the process.

West Coast Environmental Law said it was looking for a next-generation assessment law that accounted for the economic, ecological and social aspects of sustainability, that respected First Nations authority and governance, that provided for full public participation, and that connected the assessment, decision-making and action of different levels of government.

They also wanted the law to address the causes and effects of climate change, include strategic and regional assessment as fundamental components, and to require appropriate assessment of the thousands of smaller projects currently not being studied.

This isnt the time to make small adjustments to a deeply flawed processwe need a new law that ensures the health of Canadians and the environment, and this is our chance to get it right, said Stephen Hazell, the director of conservation and general counsel at Nature Canada.

Recommendations favour expansion of federal role in assessments

The initial report from the expert panel is promising many of the big changes environmentalists and others who submitted opinions wanted. The first is a major expansion in the assessment process beyond the environmental impacts of a project.

We outline that, in our view, assessment processes must move beyond the bio-physical environment to encompass all impacts likely to result from a project, both positive and negative. Therefore, what is now environmental assessment should become impact assessment, the panel said. Changing the name of the federal process to impact assessment underscores the shift in thinking necessary to enable practitioners and Canadians to understand the substantive changes being proposed in our report.

This new assessment process would cover what the panel calls the five pillars of sustainability: environmental, social, economic, health and cultural impacts.

While industry said it would like to see public input limited to those most affected by the project, the panel also sided with environmental groups wanting to see broader public input. The panel also said that more meaningful public participation in the assessment process is a must.

An overarching criterion of public participation opportunities in impact assessment processes is that these opportunities must be meaningful, the report added. A meaningful participation process needs to have the inherent potential to influence decisions made throughout the assessment, provide inclusive and accessible opportunities for early and ongoing engagement from the public and indigenous groups, and provide the capacity required for active participation in the engagement.

The panel said current rules regarding public participation are lacking and have been perceived as having been designed to limit public participation in the assessment process.

The panel believes the NEBs adoption of the standing test has greatly hindered trust in its assessments.

The degree to which this test has limited participation is evident through NEB participation data. The outcome of this is not an efficient assessment process or timely incorporation of public input into a decision-making process, the panel said. In the case of the Trans Mountain Expansion project review, a ministerial panel was convened after the NEB assessment process was completed, at least in part to hear from those who felt shut out of the initial process. In short, limiting public participation reduces the trust and confidence in assessment processes without bringing any obvious process efficiency.

The panel recommends thatlegislation require that [an impact assessment] provide early and ongoing participation opportunities that are open to all, the report said. Results of public participation should have the potential to impact decisions.

The expert panel also questioned the need for time limits on the review process, suggesting that instead, the time frame of the review process be project-specific. The current process, put in place in 2012, requires environmental assessments of projects that occur on federal lands, such as pipelines, to be completed within one or two years, depending on the projects size and complexity.

This has not met the objective of delivering cost- and time-certainty to proponents, the report said. Our recommended approach seeks to build public confidence in the assessment process. We believe that public trust can lead to more efficient and timely reviews. It may also support getting resources to market.

The expert panel also recommended a number of ways to increase First Nations participation in the assessment process, including implementing the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), especially with respect to the manner in which environmental assessment processes can be used to address potential impacts to potential or established aboriginal or treaty rights.

The panel recognized that there are broader discussions that need to occur between the federal government and indigenous peoples with respect to nation-to-nation relationships, overlapping and unresolved claims to aboriginal rights and titles, reconciliation, treaty implementation and the broader implementation of UNDRIP. According to the panel, many of these discussions will be necessary prerequisites for the full and effective implementation of the recommendations contained in the report.

Among its recommendations regarding indigenous people, the panel suggested that indigenous peoples be included in decision-making at all stages of the assessment process, in accordance with their own laws and customs.

It also suggests First Nations be funded adequately to allow meaningful participation in the process and be given the time to review information.

The panel report defines the criteria for the type of projects that should be federally reviewed and limits the criteria of projects that are included for federal review in the designated projects list.

Many participants favoured the continued use of a project list approach to trigger federal assessments because it is predictable and clear and places the focus on major resource projects, wrote the panel.

Requiring an assessment for projects with minor impacts was described as too burdensome and time-consuming for proponents and lacking proportionality. Participants also said, however, that the current project list is too focused on certain industries, such as mining, and should be revisited to ensure that the list more accurately reflects projects with the highest potential for adverse effects, with some participants indicating that in situ oilsands projects and hydraulic fracturing activities should be included.

The committee recommended only projects that affect federal interests should be included on the list. This differs from the current approach that includes projects that may not affect matters of federal interest. And it said there should be an appropriate threshold for effects on federal interests so that a trivial impact does not trigger an assessment.

A new project list should be created that would include only projects that are likely to adversely impact matters of federal interest in a way that is consequential for present and future generations, said the committee.

On the issue of government jurisdiction, there was widespread support for the idea of one project, one assessment.

However, a key goal of the assessment process is to leverage the knowledge of all government levels.

In Canada, many jurisdictions have the expertise, knowledge, best practices and capacity to contribute to impact assessments, said the panel. For example, the federal and provincial governments may focus on closely related issues, such as impacts to water quality versus impacts to a fishery. Yet indigenous groups also have relevant knowledge on these topics related to the practice of their aboriginal and treaty rights, their traditional and ongoing land use, and their laws, customs and institutions. Similarly, municipalities are the custodians of land use and the full range of local impacts that affect residents and their communities.

The committee said it believes the best way to connect all these areas of expertise is through a co-operative approach.

To date, the best examples of co-operation among jurisdictions have been joint-review panels backed up by general co-operation agreements between Canada and many provinces, said the committee. As such, expanding the co-operation model to include all relevant jurisdictions is the preferred method to carry out jurisdictional co-ordination.

Climate change a sticky issue

The expert panel said the issue of climate change has proved difficult to address under existing environmental assessment regulations.

Current processes and interim principles take into account some aspects of climate change, but there is an urgent national need for clarity and consistency on how to consider climate change in project and regional assessments, it said.

The panel said criteria, modelling and methodology must be established to assess a projects contribution to climate change, consider how climate change may impact the future environmental setting of a project, and consider a projects or regions long-term sustainability and resiliency in a changing environmental setting.

Industry is concerned the issue of climate change has sidelined project assessments and turned them into debates over government policy. The panel addressed this issue by recommending the federal government lead a strategic impact assessment or similar co-operative and collaborative mechanism on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change to provide direction on how to implement the framework and related initiatives in future federal project and regional assessments.

Like this? You should be reading Oilweek.

View original post here:

Further troubles lie ahead as Ottawa's attempt at modernizing project reviews reveals a divided Canada - JWN

At the 11th hour and with state government teetering on the edge of a shutdown, the governor has stirred up a cloud of misinformation to distract the Legislature from its work. In his press statement from June 27 and again during a talk-radio appearance, Gov. LePage threatened legislators with a government shutdown unless they support his initiative to tax conservation land owned by land trusts.

Lets look at the facts. Already this session, the Legislature overwhelmingly defeated two bills designed to remove tax-exempt status from land trusts. Both bills were unanimously rejected in the Senate. Why? Because most lands conserved by Maine land trusts fully 95 percent are already on the tax rolls.

Moreover, eliminating land trusts eligibility for a property tax exemption will have little or no impact in addressing property tax concerns in Maine and will not help state lawmakers arrive at a balanced budget. The governors proposal will also not get the state to 55 percent in education funding or allow elderly residents to keep their homes, as he has claimed in the past.

Interestingly, earlier this session the Legislature unanimously approved a bill introduced by the conservation community to allow land trusts to make voluntary tax payments to local governments to support land holdings in rural Maine. This proposal offered the governor a chance to support legislation to ease the property tax burden on Maine landowners. Yet this bill went into law without the governors signature after sitting on his desk for 10 days.

As for the governors current proposal, the latest bargaining tool in the state budget discussions, it would only affect fewer than 95,000 acres statewide, less than half of 1 percent of the state. And on roughly 20 percent of these acres the land trusts are already making payments in lieu of taxes. At the same time, the fiscal impact of eliminating the property tax exemption would be negligible.

For example, in legislative testimony in 2015, a licensed appraiser estimated that tax exemptions held by all the land trusts in Bath added roughly $1 per year to the property tax bill on a $300,000 home.

More importantly, the return on investment in land conservation greatly outweighs any costs.

There are examples in every corner of the state of land trusts benefiting their home communities. These conserved lands are an essential part of the foundation for Maines natural resource-based economy, our quality of life and the Maine brand. These lands guarantee access for commercial fishermen, protect working farms, ensure forests for forest products, create opportunities to hunt, fish, hike, swim, walk dogs, snowmobile and canoe, protect important wildlife habitat and serve as vital classrooms for students across the state.

Lastly, there is a growing understanding of the tax benefits generated by conservation land. The latest indication can be found in President Trumps fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, where the president indicates evidence shows that (National Wildlife) Refuges often generate tax revenue for communities in excess of what was lost, by increasing property values and creating tourism opportunities for the American public to connect with nature.

With the important role that trust-conserved lands play providing access to hunters, hikers, birdwatchers, snowmobilers, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts one only needs to get out of Augustas Capitol complex to see businesses and communities enjoying similar economic benefits throughout the state.

Maine people love and support conservation lands. Through six overwhelming statewide votes in favor of the Land for Maines Future Program and generous private donations, Maine citizens have made these investments in the future of the state they cherish.

Conservation lands, including those held in land trusts, are a crucial component of our economy and a valued part of our Maine way of life. They deserve more respect than to be treated as an 11th-hour bargaining chip in budget negotiations that could lead to a government shutdown.

Read more here:

Commentary: Gov. LePage misinforms public in push to end land trust tax exemptions - Press Herald

Intergenerational income mobility is so much more than your kids doing a little bit better than you did. The expectation that each generation will be more prosperous than the one that came before helps to erode class barriers, persuades the struggling immigrant that her sacrifices will ensure a better life for her children, sends the teenager from his small town to a distant college thrilled by the possibility of the world, allows Canadians, no matter where they live or where they come from, to believe that the future could be better than the past.

And so The Globe and Mails analysis of a study by Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa on the impact of geography on income mobility raises troubling questions about what steps, if any, governments should take to improve the prospects of people living in places where the child is less likely to do better than the parent.

Will Canada evolve into a mix of both urban hubs and prosperous and self-sufficient hinterland communities, or are we destined to become a country of a few big cities with nothing but empty or poor in between? And is there anything that can be done to shape that future? These are the choices facing policy makers today.

A tale of two Canadas: Where you grew up affects your income in adulthood

Prof. Coraks analysis reveals that income mobility is greatest in Canadas growing cities: places such as Greater Toronto or Saskatoon or B.C.s Lower Mainland or Montreal or Halifax.

That growth will accelerate. Warren Mabee, head of geography and planning at Queens University, thinks federal and provincial governments might, through targeted investments, be able to create mini-hubs in places such as Prince George or Thunder Bay. But in the main, vertical mobility depends on horizontal mobility: The best chance for your son or daughters income to be higher than yours is for your family to move to the city.

This wasnt always true. In the past, farming and forestry and mining offered stable, secure incomes for people and communities generation after generation. Governments provided the roads, railroads and ports and the rest of the infrastructure that sustained Canadas natural-resource economy, and then relied on market forces to do the rest.

Even now, children in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan are more upwardly mobile than children in some other parts of Canada, thanks to the oil boom that for decades fuelled the regions economy, a boom sustained by federal and provincial infrastructure investments.

But over all, rural Canada is struggling. The farms and forests and mines, and the mills and factories they generated, no longer provide the income security they once did. Competition and automation have weakened the economic base of rural Canada.

This is why so many who look at the question of preserving the rural economy focus on the importance of high-speed Internet as the new infrastructure priority.

We really need to move that forward, Prof. Mabee in an interview said. One thing that would level the playing field, at least a little bit, and provide people with opportunities in small communities by allowing them to take part in the knowledge economy, is going to be broadband connectivity.

The Trudeau government has committed $500-million over five years to expanding rural and remote access to broadband. Last December, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced a $750-million fund, to be financed by telecommunications companies, to expand broadband access in rural and remote areas. On Wednesday, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities delivered its brief to the CRTC on how the federation thinks the program should be rolled out.

If schools, businesses and homes in rural communities dont have the same high-speed access as the nearest city, you dont have the same opportunities, said Jenny Gerbasi, the federations president, who is also a Winnipeg city councillor and deputy mayor. Thats what were trying to overcome.

Universal, affordable access to the digital universe is vital to moving beyond a declining resource-based economy, she says. Even if you are in a remote area or a northern area or a very small community, you have the ability to connect to the digital economy.

Education is essential to income mobility. Children do better when they have access to high-quality daycare, to early childhood education, to excellent primary and secondary schools, to nearby colleges and universities. Federal, provincial and municipal governments struggle to provide such resources in rural areas.

There may be little or no education offered prior to kindergarten; school may involve a long daily bus ride; postsecondary education may be unavailable anywhere nearby. Improved Internet access in rural communities wont solve that problem, but it will at least help by bringing knowledge resources into the home and school.

Herb Emery, an economist at University of New Brunswick, observes that the spread of universal public education after the Second World War ensured that each generation did better than the one that came before.

But now, with 85 per cent of Canadians completing high school and more than half receiving degrees or diplomas, the overall population may be as educated as its ever going to get.

A highly educated population engaged in a knowledge-based 21st-century economy will inevitably be attracted to urban hubs, he believes. The only policy priority that matters is ensuring people in rural areas are able to move or stay as their own preferences and market conditions permit.

Federal programs such as transfer payments and equalization programs may do more harm than good in the long run by retarding labour mobility and the pace of much-needed economic transformation in the Atlantic region, he said in an interview.

Children in some First Nations communities have particularly low odds of doing better than their parents. Justin Trudeau campaigned on the promise of a new relationship between the federal government and Indigenous Canadians. We are very much focused on building new infrastructure, new schools, new opportunities, he told reporters earlier this week. But progress is slow.

Connecting remote reserves to the digital universe could help overcome their isolation. Better schooling is also essential, although what looks from the outside like programs to improve Indigenous education can look to First Nations leaders like the latest attempt at assimilation.

But a truly revolutionary approach to ending poverty on reserves would require massive investments, funded by higher taxes than most Canadians appear willing to pay. More likely, young Indigenous Canadians will migrate from the reserve to cities, continuing the rural drain.

We cant know whether the expansion of digital infrastructure will improve income mobility in rural parts of Canada, or slow the migration of the young to urban hubs. We cant know whether, having reached Peak Education, intergenerational income mobility generally is destined to slow. All government can do is try to ensure that every Canadian is as well-educated and as connected as possible, regardless of where they live. After a century and a half of building Canada, this is the next big challenge.

Follow John Ibbitson on Twitter: @JohnIbbitson

See the original post:

Improving Canadians' income mobility is the next big policy challenge - The Globe and Mail

April is the cruelest month, so said poet TS Eliot. But one wit remarked that June marks the end of May.

Who would have expected that British Prime Minister Theresa May would lose her majority in Parliament in the June election, which was supposed to strengthen her hand in negotiating Brexit with the European Union? This expectation reversal was as big a shock as Brexit or Trumpism. May may have found her Ides of March in June.

In sharp contrast, unlike earlier in the year when everyone was worried about France falling to populist rule under Marine le Pen, a fresh centrist candidate named Macron won, and was rewarded by a handsome legislative majority to carry out his promise to reform France.

In Bangkok this week to refresh memories of July 2, 1997, I was struck by how history seemed to rhyme in 10 year cycles. Next month would mark not only the 20th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China, but also the 20th anniversary of the Asian financial crisis, when the baht was devalued.

The year 2007 also marked the 10th anniversary of the US subprime crisis, which together with the European debt crisis caused a decade of low growth for advanced economies. Initially, investors hardly noticed the tremors from the subprime crisis. On July 19, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average touched a record high of 14,000. After an adjustment in Aug. to 13,000, the index dropped below 11,000 on Sept. 15, 2008, following the Lehman failure. It fell to a 12-year low of 6,547 on March 9, 2009, recording a 53.2 percent drop over this period.

Similarly, the Hong Kong Hang Seng Index also crossed the 20,000 milestone on Dec. 28, 2006 and rose to the all-time peak of 31,958 on Oct. 18, 2007. A year later, it lost 66.6 percent to a low of 10,676 on Oct. 27, 2008.

Ten years later, both indexes have once again touched record highs, with the Hang Seng recovering past the 26,000 mark this month, whereas the Dow hit a record peak of 21,528 this week. Because this rally is essentially tech driven, even the Nasdaq index has surpassed its 2000 tech bubble peak of 5,048 to hit a new peak of 6,305 on June 2, 2017.

These market gyrations suggest that another consolidation may be reached sometime soon, except we do not know the exact timing and the trigger. All we know is the there are many risks out there, including policy uncertainties from whether the Fed would continue to raise interest rates, the sudden reappearance of inflation and possible geopolitical or natural disaster events.

So far, market worries about Chinas high leverage issues seem to have receded with the stabilization of US-China relations and better performance at the growth level.

All in all, the markets have priced in so far almost all the Brexit and Trump fears and did not react too much to the recent normalization of Fed interest rates.

The stark reality is that no one knows for sure whether we are in overpriced territory or bubble zone. The US economy appears to trundle along in reasonable shape, with unemployment numbers reaching new lows. All we do know is asset prices are at record highs, financed by historically high debt and abnormally low interest rates.

In this zone of radical uncertainty, we are no longer sure that the gross domestic product indicator reflects the true state of the economy. GDP measures the old resource-based economy well, but does not capture growth in a data-digital economy. No economy reflects this contradiction more than China, which has shifted from being the largest assembler of the global supply chain towards a consumption and service-driven economy. Both consumption and services crossed the 50 percent of GDP levels, moving closer towards an advanced country pattern where consumption and services account for roughly 60-70 percent or more of GDP.

If China succeeds in this historic transition, with the old resource-consuming industries, like coal, steel, energy, being phased out, even as the new internet economy trims the inefficiencies in the current Chinese distribution system, then China could break through her middle-income trap. But one recalls that South Korea achieved Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development status in December 1996, only to fall into the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98. Mexico did the same in 1994.

All countries go through growing pains, especially what Austrian economist Schumpeterian called creative destruction. This transition creates massive winners and also losers. We see this pattern being reflected in the mixture of top Dow Jones index component companies, whereby the leading tech stocks are being priced to win, whereas the old energy, manufacturing and distribution companies are struggling to maintain their market share.

Given these radical uncertainties, history is replete with the rise and fall of nations, as well as the rise and fall of companies. It teaches humility in forcing us to think holistically on the broader trends, whilst sorting out the signals from the noise.

Emerging markets in Asia today are facing what is called a middle income trap whereby they need to break through a pain barrier to rise to advanced income status. Advanced and aging economies countries like Britain and Japan face the opposite, a high income trap where if major policy mistakes are made, a rich country may slide into stagnation and possible lower income levels.

Ultimately, demographics and geography determine destiny. Asia may face many growing pains and a complex operating environment from disruptive technology and excessive competition, including geopolitical rivalry. Western analysts disdain for Asian demagogues are now being haunted by their own demagogues. Basically, in the midst of these complex transitions through mega-trends, there is also a governance transition. The millennial generation is rapidly taking over in terms of consumption lifestyle, innovation and governance style. History suggests that it will not be a bloodless transition.

Despite all such noise, we should do well to remind ourselves that Asia is still where there is still demographic and technological growth. Lets see whether the next market adjustment will stall or disrupt that growth trajectory.

Happy 10th and 20th anniversaries!

By Andrew Sheng Andrew Sheng is a distinguished fellow at the Asia Global Institute of the University of Hong Kong. -- Ed.

(Asia News Network)

Go here to read the rest:

[Andrew Sheng] May into June - The Korea Herald

Advertisment Besides being a resource-based economy, Canada has also traditionally been powered by the ups and downs in the manufacturing sector.

Over much of our economic history, real output growth from manufacturing broadly kept pace with output growth from the business sector overall, as declines in some manufacturing industries were more than offset by growth in others.

A new study released Tuesday by Statistics Canada shows that this changed markedly after 2000, as the Canadian manufacturing sector adjusted to significant changes in the global economic environment, including: the bursting of the tech bubble in 2001; the global commodity price cycle; the appreciation of the Canadian dollar vis--vis the U.S. dollar; and stronger competition from abroad.

So, after 2000, manufacturing output growth leveled off and then declined sharply.

The agency goes on to say much of this change was pointed up by the recession in 2008-09. Real output in manufacturing declined at an annual average rate of about 9% during the recession, compared with a less than 2% average annual contraction in the business sector overall.

Following the end of the recession, the recovery in manufacturing was the slowest since the Second World War, as the sector did not return to pre-recession levels for nearly six years. Real output in this sector remains significantly lower than peak levels observed in 2006

Weakness in our durable goods industries has heavily influenced the manufacturing sector since 2000. This weakness was felt especially hard in the transportation equipment industry, and largely due to declines in motor vehicles and parts production. However, compared to the United States, the Canadian transportation equipment industry had a similar impact on growth in the manufacturing sector; therefore, this sector does not explain the relative differences in manufacturing output between the two countries.

More:

Baystreet.ca - Mfg. Sector has Changed with Years: StatsCan Study - Baystreet.ca