Hey -- what’s with the partial nudity?

That’s just how Robert Nadeau regards economists. Because, according to his recent article in Scientific American, economists are scientifically ignorant. That’s why, on his view,

Unscientific assumptions in economic theory are undermining efforts to solve environmental problems.

Essentially, Nadeau’s argument isn’t that economic theories are inconsistent. Only absurdly incomplete. As if mainstream economists were describing nothing but straight narrow portions of spectacularly long winding roads. Thus, particularly when it comes to ecological impacting, economists mislead us. Their theories can’t lead us anywhere we need to go.

Economic theories are misleading rather than explanatory due to how absurdly incomplete they are. Nadeau is calling for economic upgrades:

Because neoclassical economics does not even acknowledge the costs of environmental problems and the limits to economic growth, it constitutes one of the greatest barriers to combating climate change and other threats to the planet. It is imperative that economists devise new theories that will take all the realities of our global system into account.

Some economists might not take Nadeau’s threat to tinker economics lying down, though. “Bender”, for instance, commented that,

In an article purportedly discussing economic analysis and environmental policy neither externality nor externalities ever appeared! I don’t know which is more depressing, that someone could be stupid and ignorant enough to produce this tripe or that the Scientific American has sunk so low as to publish it.

How pedantic. That's exactly what Nadeau's talking about -- how overwhelming economic externalities like ecology are getting. But Nadeau not utilising the specific terms “Bender” recognizes resulted in “Bender” utterly missing Nadeau’s point. Standard economic theories mislead us precisely because environmental crisis constitutes such overwhelming externality.

Nadeau’s right, of course. We are rushing full steam and toxic waste to being overwhelmed. Not just economically.

But should economists seek to internalize theoretically and factually overwhelming externalities like environmental crisis? No. By no means. Absolutely not. There is no economic solution to our problems. Rather, let’s better appreciate how limited and incomplete economic theories are -– and let’s start looking way past economics for what it means to be more natural. What it means to be at all natural.

Can we do that? Toronto living is just about the most economically affluent anywhere –- ever. We expect some economic turbulence ahead. Will we be willing to look past it –- for what it means to be more natural? Or do we remain forever fixated on economic maximizing -- regardless how affluent we get? Regardless the cost to everything natural so precariously remaining?

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]

Screenshot from here.

The scrap truck cruised along the street, stopping at a pile of bicycles placed at curbside for pickup. Moments later the driver paused in front of our home, glanced at the wooden table we'd set out, drove off. Metal guy. Mixed scrap isn't worth so much, but sorted aluminum will bring in up to a dollar a pound, depending on the salvage yard and the yard boss's mood.

Last night we set out by bike on our own salvaging run. Not looking for anything in particular, just cruising. Peter collects bike parts; I like vintage appliances: an old sewing machine; a 1950s portable record player. We both brake for many-paned windows, usable lumber, and, once, a box of discarded crystal. Last night we passed on myriad chesterfields and unmatching chairs, wooden cupboards lacking doors, a set of Barbie vehicles: hopefully she's now driving a hybrid. We didn't bring home anything last night, except the pleasure of looking and the night song of robins returned to the city.

Later this year the City of Toronto plans to implement a new fee-based garbage program. Residents will order city-supplied standardized garbage bins and will be charged according to the size ordered. The smallest bin, which holds the equivalent of a single garbage bag, is planned to net the homeowner a $10 annual credit. The largest bin, which accommodates the equivalent of four and a half bags, will cost $190 per year. The new program is part of the City's strategy to achieve 70% waste diversion by 2010, and coincides with the new recycling program already being phased in through the distribution of behemoth blue bins. Scarborough residents are already being asked to select their new garbage bins; the program will be rolled out westward across the city during the summer, and the new collection system is scheduled to be implemented by November 1, 2008.

After living and working for years in one of the first Ontario municipalities to implement fee-based garbage pick-up, I greeted news of Toronto's fee-based system with cautious enthusiasm. Then, while reading the materials provided to date by the City, it occurred to me that the new regime might put a crimp in urban salvage activities. If all waste must be crammed into the bins, what will happen to the objects currently salvaged, especially small appliances, toys, electronics, books, bicycles, building materials and metal scrap? The City suggests that these objects might be donated to charity or taken to City-run drop-off centres, but it seems to me that this overlooks a vital curbside step in waste diversion: the local economy of salvage.

In our neighbourhood, residents tend to place useful but unwanted objects at curbside a day or two ahead of pickup, in hopes that they will find a new home instead of ending up in a landfill. While it would be difficult to quantify the volume of waste diverted this way, it's been our experience that the majority of reusable objects and saleable scrap are picked up long before the (...read more...)

I don't think it is a secret that the ROM Crystal is not Jack Diamond's favourite Toronto building. Even worse, the architect—designer of the popular new Opera House—must have had fits when Libeskind's Crystal was anointed as one of the "seven new wonders" of the architectural world.

That's why I think Mr. Diamond is delighted by his new design for the Museum Subway stop. After all, most of the people who come to the ROM come by TTC, and the first space they'll encounter on the way to the Crystal is Jack's.

Here are some pictures of the new stop as provided by the architect.




The inscription contained within the letters on the track wall is from a limestone relief in the tomb of an ancient Egyptian nobleman named Met-jet-jy. Dating to approximately 2300 BC, the original artefact is housed in the Egyptian Gallery at the Royal Ontario Museum.

This is what you’ll see when your household exceeds the bandwidth quota allotted by Rogers.

You’ll be sure to see it. Rogers will hijack your browser and show it to you.

And your browser window will wind up looking like this:


But I refused to believe it this morning when it happened to me. What -- over 60 gigs? Just in March? No way. I monitor every last drop of bandwidth percolating through the router. No way.

That’s what I said when I finally got through that crazy voice recognition system of Rogers’. No way.

“Well,” replied their living and breathing tech support fellow, “what does your record show?”

“20 gigs -– give or take a few,” I growled. All indignant.

So we compared daily bandwidth records. And it turned out I was totally wrong. The 20 gigs I’d been looking at? Corresponded with the last 10 days’ use. Only.

“Alright, fine,” I relented. “But how confident are you guys in tracking everyone’s bandwidth? And what will you do when individuals dispute your readings? How will you resolve that?”

“Pretty confident,” he said. “We’ve been testing the hell out of it. Of course, computers do make mistakes. And in such cases, customers self-tracking their bandwidth will stand a good chance of getting credited.”

“Ok, but why do it at all?” I asked. “Didn’t your high-speed customers sign up for unlimited use?”

“We have no choice,” he replied. “We pay for bandwidth and now it’s getting to the point where some customers are using 200 gigs. More even. That’s what’s wrecked it for everyone else.”

Ok. Fair enough. But still. The link provided by Rogers to view one’s bandwidth usage -- rogers.com/keepingpace –- is not accessible. In fact, Rogers’ website has been down all day. How to trust Rogers’ bandwidth tracking everyone –- when Rogers can’t even keep their own website up?

I’ll keep right on self-tracking, thank you. And this whole browser hijacking thing? I’ll have to think about that some more. Because, going by first impressions –- it just seems like some sort of security nightmare. But first, I’m gon’na find out who’s been abusing the torrents @ my household last month. That’s one mystery won’t require much brilliance detecting.

[Peter Fruchter teaches in the Division of Humanities at York University.]