Straight Outta Edmonton: Deliberation on Campus Sustainability (DoCS)

Want to join student leaders from across the campus in an innovative project that will help create sustainability policy at the University of Alberta?

If so, you are invited to contribute to sustainability planning at the University of Alberta. Deliberation on Campus Sustainability (DoCS) is a project that brings together University of Alberta students, regardless of background and experience, to participate in discussions that will help inform sustainability policy on campus and inspire community engagement across all campuses. All you have to do is show up and share your views.

Attend Phase 1 of deliberations on one of the following sessions:

  • Monday January 24th: 11:00 am- 2:30pm Lister Hall, Wild Rose Room
  • Tuesday January 25th: 2:30pm-6:00pm Lister Hall, Wild Rose Room
  • Wednesday January 26: 5:00-8:30pm Lister Hall, Wild Rose Room

Please email Lisa Dockman ( which session you would like to attend.

No matter how knowledgeable or experienced you are in campus sustainability, your opinion is vital to this process and your involvement is important service for the University community. Please join us for a hearty meal and a meaningful conversation about what key issues exist on campus.

Frequently Asked Questions:

What is DoCS?

DoCS is a collaborative project that is working to integrate students, staff and faculty into the University’s sustainability strategy in the most democratic way possible. DoCS is a process that involves a series of conversations or dialogues, made up of a diverse group of the campus community, focused on how we can create and contribute to a more sustainable campus. Emerging from a desire to see positive progression towards environmental, social and economic responsibility, our team is determined to design and implement a process where a series of dialogues affects change and is experienced by the participants as meaningful.

How will my input be used?

All contributions to the DoCS process will inform the end products which include a Campus Sustainability Plan and a toolkit to encourage the use of deliberative decision making processes on campus. All participants will have the opportunity to witness the outcomes and products of their effort.

What is the time commitment DoCS requires?

By signing up today you are committing to attend one 3.5 hour deliberation, and in March you will be invited to attend a similar follow up conversation.

If I am unable to attend this session, how can I learn more?

Please attend our DoCS session during International Week, it will be on Monday January 31st at 4pm in Education South 129.

Continue reading

The Deficit Kings

When I read Brian Mulroney giving Harper advice to “do something big,” I laughed.

First I thought perhaps Mulroney meant taking in a $300,000 bribe, lying about it, and then successfully suing the Federal government for over $2 million due to allegat…

Continue reading

ALTAVISTAGOOGLE: Simpsons Fan Victim of Aussie Flood

At first, I didn’t care too much about the Aussies loosing their homes and cars after a river crested (what part of flood plain don’t you understand), but this lady, with the giant head of Bart Simpson on her wall, really brings it home. Australians are people too. 1:49 on this video.  This video of cars streaming down the river is also worth a look, but the lack of The Simpsons memo…

Continue reading

ALTAVISTAGOOGLE: The Impact of Cookies on Google AdSense

A while back, Google AdSense migrated from purely contextual advertising to historical advertising. I didn’t notice until I visited the Economist web site, once. Since then, it feels like 50% of the web is trying to get me to subscribe! The difference is clearly illustrated on the screen capture. On the left, page visited using Google Chrome, my regular browser on my home computer. On the r…

Continue reading

The Roundhouse: Purchasing Fighter Jets, Yes. F-35s, Maybe.

The prospective purchase of 65 F-35 fighter aircraft for the Canadian Forces has become, perhaps unsurprisingly, a political football. What is little in evidence, however, is discussion of the role the aircraft are intended to fill in our national defence policy, and the reasons for making this specific purchase.

As background it is worth reminding ourselves that the Canadian CF-18 fleet, originally over 120 strong, has been reduced to some 60 operational aircraft by unit retirement and changing priorities. These last 60 aircraft are approaching the final decade of their design life, and they cannot be kept flying forever. Any replacement aircraft, however, will not appear in the budget until 2016 or so, and the price will be spread over a decade for their delivery. Maintenance costs, an enormous percentage of the total lifetime cost of these assets, would continue over their 25-40 year useful life. A fleet of fighter jets is a big-ticket item, with the current conversation of the F-35 purchase including $9 billion for the planes and $7 billion for the maintenance over their lifespan. This is a lot of money, but on a national scale over a period of decades it is also not really that large. Our government is looking at spending several billion dollars on additional prison buildings in the near future, not to mention what the operation and maintenance expenses of those buildings will turn out to be.

In considering the purchase, then, we have a national defence asset that provides a series of unique capabilities that we are losing in the near future to old age. Those capabilities include:
1 – Air superiority/combat air patrol
2 – Air strikes on surface targets
3 – Aerial Reconnaissance & surveillance
4 – A rapidly deployable force with enormous range
5 – A force element highly interoperable with our allies
The fundamental question underlying the purchase of any replacement fighter aircraft is whether or not we require these capabilities, and if so whether or not new aircraft are the only way to maintain them.

In the case of the original raison d’être of fighter aircraft, the ability to control airspace, they are still an unrivalled tool. Ground-based defences can protect specific sites, but Canada’s capabilities in that area are starkly limited and our airspace is vast. There are now drone aircraft, including the American Predator, with a limited anti-aircraft capability. Given their relatively slow speed, limited sensor capabilities and very limited armament these drones also do not approach the capacity offered by manned aircraft.

The story in terms of surface support is much the same. Army artillery can provide support only within its own range, as is the case with our Navy’s ships and submarines. The aircraft are able to provide support over great distances, and are also capable of using a vast array of munitions, from the most powerful to the most precise. Drones as yet carry only a very limited array of weapons, and are far less survivable to boot.

In terms of surveillance fighter aircraft are essentially never the first option. Dedicated long-range reconnaissance aircraft like the Orion or Nimrod are superior for maritime work and drones are better for tactical work. Where the fighter aircraft do offer a unique strength in this area is in their ability to actually engage a target if required, but for the scouting work itself they are a second option.

The range issue has already been mentioned. Canada is vast, our maritime frontiers even more so, and we have friends and potential commitments all over the world. In that respect this type of aircraft is an excellent asset for foreign deployments for two reasons. First, it is relatively easy to get the planes there. Second, so long as we maintain our tradition of NATO interoperability we can act with our allies without awkward and expensive barriers to overcome.

In my view these are capabilities we should have, both for our own protection and for the aid of our allies. It is also worth noting that these are not capabilities that can be recreated in less than a decade should we decide to eliminate them. To buy the planes, get them delivered, train pilots and re-create an infrastructure would be enormously expensive and time-consuming. To a large extent we shelter under the American aerial umbrella (they operate thousands of fighter aircraft), but their interests are not ours and there will be frictions around northern waters and sovereignty for example where their aid may not be forthcoming, or it may not be available even if they want to help.

This brings me to the question of whether or not the F-35 is the right aircraft for Canada’s needs. There are a variety of aircraft currently in production. Some, like China’s domestically-produced military aircraft are easily ruled out. I put Russian-made MIG aircraft in this category, both due to their inferior performance and more importantly the highly unsafe and unreliable supplier. Given our highly limited influence in Russia, and the difficulties around relying on contracts with Russian organization (i.e.: Shell’s experience with Gazprom) there are far too many red lights to make this practicable. What does that leave us with?

Essentially there are 5 aircraft being produced by Canada’s allies for us to choose from, including the F-35. In Europe the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale also are in production, and thus likely available. In the United States there are the F-16, the F-15E and the F-18 E/F model (the linear descendant of Canada’s CF-18s, which are largely a variant of the F-18D). The Americans are also producing the F-22, but this aircraft is both more expensive than the F-35 and less well-rounded, being focused more on air-to-air combat. Currently it is also restricted from export sale by Congress, just in case anyone here still wanted it…

So why the F-35? The F-15, F-16 and F-18 models are old designs, with the advantages and drawbacks that implies. They are proven performers, but they lack some of the capabilities provided by the newer aircraft. The Eurofighter and Rafale are largely equivalent to their American counterparts, with the exception of the F-35, which stands out from the group as the only option from the very latest design generation; incorporating a variety of stealth characteristics and sensor and computer upgrades.

The question is what capabilities the plane is required to deliver, and the threats it is intended to meet. Fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18s seem like a reasonable defence purchase to me, given the variety and importance of the roles these aircraft perform. What is less clear to me is whether or not we need the F-35. Any of the models mentioned here is an upgrade over our current CF-18s, even if the latter were not at the very end of their useful life. An open tender based on clearly published requirements would seem like an obvious way to allow the field to price itself, and to comparison shop. I am disappointed that this approach was not taken by the government several years ago, but I am hoping that public interest drives a conversation about the topic now. I am also hoping that this conversation does not long delay a selection and a purchase, since such aircraft are an important part of our national defence framework and the timelines on acquisition is long.

While I am on the subject of said framework it is worth pointing out that a full white paper national defence review would seem to be called for as a way of adjudicating priorities on such issues.

Here are the Operational Requirements from the DND website:

Continue reading

Challenging the Commonplace: BC Liberal Leadership Candidate Christy Clark

A dear friend who died just over a year ago spent her last decade, all the while coping through severe illness, trying to get community groups and non-profits recognized by governments for the beyond-their-weight work that they do for communities. Ronnie Phipps would have been thrilled to see a leadership candidate make a proposal such as this.

Christy Clark: "If elected premier, I want to hold

Continue reading