Canada? Innovative? Hahahahaha!
Cats: Canada|If you like our way of life in Canada, you might want to pay attention to the “chilling” report by the Conference Board of Canada which gives this country low grades on things like innovation, R&D and sustainable development.
The report card paints a portrait of a mediocre performance that will not be good enough to meet the fundamental goal of a high and sustainable quality of life for all Canadians,” according to a summary of the report, issued yesterday.
And the conference board isn’t the only one sounding the warning bells.
Canada has all the makings of a global leader, yet it has opted to become a global laggard, preferring to fritter away its jackpot of rich resources rather than build viable multinationals that are ultimately the country’s best defence in a globalized world. – Why Mexicans don’t drink Molson, Andrea Mandel-Campbell
This isn’t just business complaining or Canada-bashing. Manufacturing is in decline. Resources like mining and petroleum are finite. Others, like forestry, need investment and innovation to be sustainable in the long term.
These are the economic engines that fund our universal health care and high-quality education, among other things. If we want to keep this way of life, we have to think seriously about how to develop new engines that will fuel our country in the 21st-century global economy.
For an educated, healthy “first-world” country, innovation is the key. There are huge economic opportunities in sustainable and alternative energy generation, new media technologies, 3-D imaging and the bio-sciences.
But seizing these opportunities will require a strong entrepreneurial spirit, creative thinking, investment, and a willingness to take risk.
In another life, GT is an export entrepreneur who lives and dies by R&D and innovation. The warning bells sounded this week put meat on the bones of fears that have been niggling away about Canada’s future.
June 14th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Economic growth is the main driver behind environmental degradation. Keeping up with the Jones’ will keep things better for longer, but as depressing at it is, the quality of life that we aim to maintain must come to an end some time. Sustaining the unsustainable?
June 14th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Is investment in alternative and sustainable energy bad for the environment?
Or new media technologies that enable better communication without physical movement, thus reducing road, rail and airline traffic. Ditto 3D technologies to solve problems. Perhaps these can be used to educate people about the problems and the importance of conservation and reduced expectation – eg. you can get by without the SUV, people.
I agree that we’re in trouble, but isn’t vision preferable to nihilism? I’d rather go down fighting than throw up my hands and say nothing could be done.
Canada is smart enough to BE the Jones, to think, invent and lead the way with sustainable growth. Perhaps, others can keep up with us.
June 15th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Well who’s quality of life are we talking about? People equate it to standard of living. Planet friendly alternatives cost money, and hit the average consumer in the wallet. Why do you think everyone is so reluctant to reduce greenhouse gases? I would suggest that it is because we would not be competitive globally, and would thus not export as much, and would see a drop in our standard of living. We don’t manage our forested ecosystems sustainably for the same reason.
We could double gas prices with an environmental levy, but again our standard of living and economy would take a shit kicking.
I agree that it’s a problem that we need to deal with, but regardless of how we tackle it it’s going to hurt in the mid-term, which would be political suicide for the governing party.
I like the idea of no imports and no exports. The population would reflect the carrying capacity of the land, and we would attain a standard of living that was directly related to the richness of our resources.
at least that way we would get away from foreign market driven resource exploitation.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:19 am
It will cost us to make changes. But we will make them, not because it’s a good idea, but for reasons of energy security and coming shortages. My point is that these problems represent economic opportunities.
Other countries have capitalized through R&D and innovation and remained globally competitive. Click the Conference board link. The Scandi countries are all on top when it comes of innovation and environment.
The idea is that problems like the ones you and the Conference Board raise, have been faced up to by other countries. Gas prices in Europe range from 2X to 5X that of Canada, so you have smaller more efficient cars and excellent public transportation systems.
Other technologies too: Off-peak storage heating solutions, solar heating technologies, flow-through hot water generation, these technologies are far more advanced in Europe.
And don’t get me going about Canadians and their cheap water-pig-agitator-washer habit. Front loaders use a 10th of the water and detergent and Europeans still hang clothes. I have a front loader and hang the clothes, btw
Scandi countries get 30 % of their energy from bio mass. Windmills, tidal and wave R&D are lightyears ahead of here. And on and on.
Canada has had it way to easy for a long time. With all those resources out there, Canada hasn’t had to think. This has made it lazy and entitled (hate the word but couldn’t think of another). But now is the time to think, even, if as you say, we operate on a negative import-expert model. Self-sufficiency. There are lots of clever people saying this and doing this not just to get rich but to protect what we have for the kids.
The lifestyle ( I think) worth keeping is one with universal health care, good universal public eduation and a good social safety net, law and order and responsible foreign policy. I don’t need an SUV, a water-pig wash and electricity-pig dryer or even a car,for that matter. But you have to generate money for these things. So it is an economic challenge.
June 15th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I hear you, and it makes sense to move toward more energy and resource efficient appliances etc.
There is a disparity though (I think that’s the right word). The persons and communities that provide the raw materials / resources do need 4wd vehicles, and 5X the current gas prices would force us all to relocate to the cities, thereby halting the flow of resources. They don’t even send a school bus past my place, so public transit is never going to be an option for me.
I’d switch to solar in the blink of an eye if I could afford it. I’m investigating the options.
I just hope our urban focussed population doesn’t forget about us rural folks (who have poor access to health care, education, and a social safety net, and have very little influence on foreign policy).