Free long distance telephone calls

I don’t like being taken advantage of. When I pay $0.10 cents a minute for a long distance call and my friends tell me that they only pay $0.035 per minute I recognize that their phone company still makes a profit and that my phone company is extracting a $0.065 stupidity tax from me for sticking with their dumb prices. For years there have been programs to let you talk from computer to computer, but it required 2 people being at their computers at the same time, running special software… well that doesn’t sound as convenient as the phone, and who wants to leave their computer running all the time?

Skype and Jajah let you make long distance calls for free or low cost.

My friend Dan King introduced me to SKYPE. He had friends in the UK and wanted to call them from Canada but without the ridiculous long distance charges the local phone company would charge. The critical difference with Skype was a service they offer which allows you to make calls to conventional phones. It is called SkypeOut, and it costs about $0.03 cents CAD per minute. Definately a better price than the one offered by local phone companies.

The Skype website says:

“Skype is a little piece of software that lets you talk over the Internet to anyone in the world for free.”

SkypeIn is a phone number your friends can call. You answer in Skype.

Use SkypeOut to call from Skype to traditional landlines or mobiles.

Clearcut Housing Development

Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted.  The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).

Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees.  …we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder.  …There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. …

Here in British Columbia’s lower mainland, many people take the greenery for granted.  The trees seem to grow faster here than they do in other parts of the country (like Manitoba where the growing season is much shorter).

Here there are a number of constraints on the development of new houses.  We have an international border with the United States (which we can’t move to make more room for houses), We have the ocean (which isn’t moving any time soon), we have the Coastal mountains, which are quite steep and difficult places to build houses, and we have something called the Agricultural Land Reserve ALR which is a set of laws designed to protect farmland and stop ‘urban sprawl’ (Otherwise we would have a city 120 KM long and 25 km wide).

Forest land is almost guaranteed to not be a part of the ALR, so new houses often displace mature stands of trees.  For the developer it is a way to quickly regain some of the money he has spent on the land by selling the logs.  It also clears the land so there are few restrictions on where the house can stand.  Since today’s developers seem intent on subdividing land as greedily as possible (to fit as many dwellings as possible on the smallest possible piece of land, they don’t want to leave 20ft here for a row of trees, since they could squeeze another property in that space.  It would seem that the developers can’t be self-policing since they are guided by greed in squeezing the most profit out of a piece of land.  So it would fall to the cities and municipalities to ensure that the land being developed is “livable” and protected.  Despite the fact that taxes revenues rarely exceed development and maintenance costs within a city, many beureaucrats are still drawn by the allure of tax dollars.  Trees don’t pay tax dollars, but the small dwelling squeezed onto a property does pay taxes, so the trees are at a significant disadvantage.  For example Surrey British Columbia calls itself the “City of parks”, I think it should be called the “City of clearcuts”

On my way to work over the last few months, there was some land developed offering 8 lots, 3 of which were treed.  I noticed that  the treed lots sold first, I also noticed that the builders who then built houses on the treed lots, sold their houses first, it would appear that there was a higher demand for those lots which were treed, and according to common economic theory we can infer that the lots for which there was a higher demand fetched a higher price for both developer and builder.  If the value of the land was higher we would also expect that the City could realize higher taxes for the treed properties.  So we would expect that with a financial incentive to have a treed lot, that developers and cities would be pushing for more treed lots, but they aren’t.  If financial incentive isn’t enough to convince builders and developers to be self-regulating, then the incentive to preserve trees must lie in legislation and regulation that will force developers and builders to do what they would otherwise neglect.  The case for such regulation is compelling albeit mostly non-financial.

There are plenty of reasons why a property with trees is prefereable over a lot with no trees. Here are some:
1. Beauty.  The first reason is beauty.  Instead of seeing the neighbour’s oversized shed, or that freeway onramp, you see a beautiful tree that glows with the light of the sun, changes colours in the fall, fills with blossoms in the spring and displays icicles and horfrost in the winter.  Green leaves waving in the breeze help make your property a peaceful sanctuary from the rush of everyday life, while effectively hiding eyesores on ajoining properties.
2.Soil retention.  The roots of trees grip the soil and in hilly terrain can make the difference between a useable backyard, and having your house slide down the hill into your neighbour’s backyard.  Considering the cost of retaining walls, labour and proper drainage, retaining trees is a bargain.
3. Summer cooling.  A canopy of leaves can provide the indoor and outdoor space on your property with protection from the sun.  This translates to a roof that lasts longer (less thermal abuse), a yard and deck that are more enjoyable in summer, and reduced cooling costs in your house.  Conveniently enough,for deciduous trees, in the winter, those leaves disappear allowing in more sun during the darker dreary days of winter, which helps with heating your home.
4. Air quality.  Trees do a fantastic job of absorbing CO2 from the air and replacing it with Oxygen, which makes for cleaner more healthy air.  They even act as natural deodorizers making the air smell fresher, all of which is important in urban areas where there is a disproportionately high amount of CO2 and pollution.
5. Wildlife Habitat.  With very little use of space on the ground, trees provide a significant amount of habitat for birds and other small wildlife.   At our house (where we are privileged to back on a small forested park) we are constantly serenaded by pretty songbirds, something which happened much less in houses that were developed in areas without such concentrations of trees.

So this is my pitch to encourage you to buy a property with trees, to plant trees if you don’t already have them on your property.  To prefer buying a treed property if you are a builder, to not clearcut a development if you are a developer, and to not allow clearcut development in your city or municipality if you are in such a  position of civic oversight.  Thanks for reading, I welcome your comments.

Beetle Plague in British Columbia

3 000 square kilometers of forest in British Columbia have been infested with the pine beetle since 1997.

there is little discussion about why this is happening, only an accelerated logging program for the dead trees.  No emphasis on prevention, and the strange media announcement that the beetle infested wood is desirable.  Weird.  Sounds like ostriches with their heads in the sand if you ask me.  300,000 hectares of trees killed, and we aren’t asking why?

corporate denial? Government obliviousness (new word?)  sounds like a plague, and if I know my history, plagues were always sent as warnings, and people experiencing plagues stopped what they were doing and tried to figure out how they could mend their ways.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/

Fair Trade: The Bane of Slavery

Guest writers: Robert and Kim Daisley

Chocolate: the new nectar of the gods; the perfect pleasure; the sweet seductress. Oh, and it supports a multinational trade in slaves. Of course, I didn’t know this when I was gulping down Mars bars to stay awake on night shifts. Well, I mean, I knew that chocolate tasted good even though I may not yet at that point have made up the lame metaphors regarding that great taste and the hold that chocolate has on our society, but I didn’t know about the slaves. I was listening to CBC’s As It Happens and heard Carol Off promoting her new book Bitter Chocolate. She described the atrocious working conditions of many of the people who were involved in the production of the cocoa beans that are used in (and crucial to) the production of chocolate. She told how the beans can only be grown in certain parts of the world near the equator and how Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) is one of the main cocoa-producing countries. Off also described how the conditions in the cocoa industry (spearheaded by multi-national conglomerates such as Nestle) result in slavery.

When I called my wife and asked her to tune in to the program, she did, and found it very interesting. It also prompted a frenzy of research on the internet, covering websites from environmental, social justice, and capitalist (read “Nestle”) organisations. Of course, the information available conflicts in many ways, but after some analysis and discussion, we decided that the evidence weighed firmly in favour of supporting fair trade chocolate. Without rehashing all of the arguments for and against (google if you want to read them), the main reason that we decided to support fair trade was that we don’t agree with the concept of a multinational corporation dictating the “market forces” because of their near-monopoly power, the result being that the people who actually produce the goods live in poverty.

[caption id="attachment_359" align="aligncenter" width="225" caption="When you eat Fair Trade Chocolate you are saving the world"][/caption]

So we decided that we’d try to purchase only fair trade chocolate. It’s not always easy, it’s not always fun, and it’s not always possible. But we try and I guess in some small ways, we’re making a difference. For the most part, we get our fair trade products in Brandon. But since we learned about fair trade chocolate, we also learned about other fair trade products including coffee which can be purchased at our local grocery stores. Kicking Horse coffee (including the “Kick Ass” blend) tastes good and feels great.

It’s not all roses. Sure, we feel better about our purchasing decisions, but it can be hard on the pocket book. The coffee costs $12 on sale and last two weeks. But you can buy coffee for half the price in a quantity that will last four times as long. So when you look just at the economic cost at the checkout counter, it’s a big difference. And when we bought the fair trade chocolate bars, Kim noticed that they don’t taste the same and wasn’t actually too impressed with the difference in flavour.

Our bottom line, however, is that we remain firmly committed to fair trade products, as long as it doesn’t cost us too much (for the moment, we’ve drawn the line at those fancy fair trade, organic cotton shirts that sell for $30 instead of $5).

Why the government shouldn’t gamble.

I don't believe that gambling is harmless entertainment. I continue to hear stories of how it hurts people with addictive personalities. How it hurts the companies they embezel from.  How it hurts the families that are neglected while they gamble, both emotionally and financially.

Gambling  hurts the businesses that otherwise would have created value by creating something. If a tourist spends money on gambling, that money is not available for souveniers / hotel / dinner etc. We are a debt ridden society and need to encourage financial responsibility and self control not irresponsibility. Gambling is a tax on those who can’t do math well. The poor and the uneducated are its most common prey. The government has a fiduciary duty to protect those most at risk. Gambling is an unproductive activity, which entices many to throw away the money they have to chase an unlikely dream rather than working or investing what they have.

Despite the promises of economic growth, it is my understanding that increased gambling in an area typically results only in low end jobs increased crime and reduced property value.  All of  this is at a huge economic cost of government subsidies. People work hard for their taxes, their taxes should not support such an industry. Many of the arguments used to justify the gambling industry are also used to justify the pornography industry. Those are my immediate thoughts and I hope to study the issue in more detail so I can speak less from my feelings and more from my head (I do trust my gut on this one...). 

 

Here is a letter that appeared in the Abbotsford News.

“this is in regards to the article “Langley’s new caasino coming up aces” (The News, Aug. 1) Economics 101: taking $90 million out of a community and handing back $4 million is not sustainable in the long run. This means people in the langley area contributed $90 million to a single business with a percentage going to municpal, provincial and federal coffers. The amount given back to individuals as “winnings” are other people’s “losings” and are nominal, usually spent back to the house. Research confirms that the first three or four years of a casino will be a honeymoon period. National and international studies show decreases in crime, improvement in local economies, and upgrading of unattractive areas to be short-term as addictions take time to take hold and personal / family resources take time to deplete. It is the long-term effects which are so sobering. A study by Laval University on Quebec’s Hull Casino showed that after on year of the casino opening, the proportion of local residents who gambled increased from 13.8 per cent to 60.4 per cent. The at-risk gamblers more than doubled, from 3.3 per cent to 7.8 percent, like many other studies showing availability and marketing increases addiction levels. The very purpose of marketing is to attract clientele and reveals the slogan of “people would gamble anyway” as the ruse of a profit hungry gambling industry. Like smoking, decreasing availability and advertising while increasing education on the dangers decreases addiction. The gambling industry is only profitable because it does not cover its true costs of operation. It produces addicts and smillingly hands back a minute amount of the local money, leaving communities to pay for the estimated $10,500 to $19,000 costs per year, per addict. While the province earned a net $818.0 million in 2004-2005 from gambling revenues, social costs are estimated (at their lowest) at almost $1.3 billion. So family and children ministries suffer, while the government robs Peter to pay Paul and spins the numbers to look good. As for organized-crime involvement in legalized gambling, I suggest the reporter do some research on RCMP studies on the subject. It only takes a moment to search and I grieve over the lack of investigative reporting that results in gambling industry advertising being presented as facts. I challenge “Black Press” to say “This approach is far better” a few years from now to the families of those who watched their loved ones slip away.

Since the letter was written, we've had a similar push for a casino here in Abbotsford; or uh, sorry its not called that by enlightened people, its called a "community gaming centre".  There is more thoughtful commentary to share on this topic, but that will have to wait.  let me be absolutely clear.  I'm saying government shouldn't be actively profiting from it gambling.