Zoom throws in the towel: http://www.flyzoom.com/

While the death of Zoom Airlines, a discount long-haul carrier based in the UK, is a tragedy for their 600 employees, it is a sign of changing times. I flew Vancouver to London on Zoom just three months ago, and it cost me $700, taxes in. That is $300 less than my most recent flight from Vancouver to Halifax, which is less than half the distance. Even at that price, the flight was only about 2/3rds full. I remember thinking at the time how economically unsustainable it was.

I think that there must be two underlying causes of the declining demand for cheap flights. First of all, with the global economic downturn sparked by the US housing crisis, fewer people who would otherwise be choosing an airline based on price are taking vacations. I think the second cause, which to me is more exciting, is that more people might be choosing to avoid flying because of the environmental repercussions.

Whether you are an American reader or a Canadian, I am certain that by now you have heard of the Listeria outbreak here in Canada. If not, here are the cliffnotes: so far 15 dead, 14 sick, and 31 more cases under investigation. The outbreak was centered around a macro scale animal slaughter and meat production plant owned and operated by Maple Leaf.

Why do I say that industrial agriculture is responsible? Blogger Lovable Liberal claims that meat production plants merely act as a vector, and that bacteria originates from an animal. While I agree, there would be no mass scale outbreak if it were not for the massive scale on which these food products are produced.

If we were still allowed to have micro-scale butchers, slaughtering and cutting up meat in their own shop, with a production capacity of only a few animals per day, this would never be a major issue. In fact, Listeria only affects the elderly, pregnant, and those with comparmized immune systems. Therefore it is likely that a single animal, or even a few animals that get infected in a small-scale facility could even go without harming anyone. It would go completely unnoticed. Is it any surprise that every serious outbreak occurs in macro-scale facilities? Yet government officials argue that production plants have to shoulder more responsibility for inspection (essentially privatizing food inspection). Greater requirements for industry self-regulation means that the costs are not economical for small scale producers.

The result is more of the same. More industrial agriculture, more mass-production of food, and more contamination outbreaks.

Photo credits: liberals.ca, Flickr user slightly-less-random, barackobama.com

This fall will be an exciting season for politics. CBC’s The House will be busy. With a Federal election about to be called, municipal elections in BC this November, and of course the Presidential election in the United States. If thats not enough, a few short months later we will be back to the polls for the provincial election. However, I seem to be continually running into people who don’t vote. And I am disappointed to say these are young people. (more…)

After spending a few days in Toronto, I couldn’t help but engage in some lively discussions with a couple investment-banker type friends of mine about the ethics of investing. We went back and forth a few times about who decides what stocks to buy, how that decision is made, and what ethical framework those decisions are made in. I will outline what I believe to be the way stocks are bought and sold by fund managers, and then discuss why I think one should be more considerate with their investments.

1. Fund managers operate under a mandate, making buying and selling decisions based on that mandate
2. The mandate is set out by whomever the money belongs to
3. That mandate is usually “make money”, and does not include an ethical framework under which to make buying decisions
4. Fund managers analyze a stock’s value, and if they believe it is undervalued in the market place, based on financial statements an such, they will buy some of that stock
5. If the mandate the fund manager is working under only says “make money”, the fund manager would be going against the mandate if he chose to not purchase a stock for ethical reasons

Why does this matter? Well, by my rudimentary understanding of finance, the more demand a company’s stock is in, the lower the cost of capital is for that company. The lower the cost of capital, the more competitive and able to expand that company will be. Therefore, especially when buying large quantities of stock, by buying a company’s stock, you are not only attempting to make money for yourself, but you are helping that company grow and be successful.

What do I mean when I say buying stocks based on ethics? Well, if one was to buy stocks in a company that produces tidal power stations, we would not only be trying to make money, but we would be supporting a company that is helping to provide alternatives to fossil fuels. If, on the other hand, we were to buy stocks in Monsanto, we would be supporting a company that bribes government officials, falsifies scientific documents, knowingly pollutes water supplies, and sues hundreds of farmers for collecting their own seeds. It is true that Monsanto stock has doubled in the last year, but is the money that could be made from the increase in stock price worth being partially responsible for catastrophic environmental damage?

A common excuse for corporate misconduct is that the CEO was trying to increase shareholder value. If you were a shareholder when any misconduct occurred, the CEO would have been working on your behalf. That essentially means that if you hold stocks in Monsanto, or any other corporation that engages in criminal activity, you are ethically an accessory.

One argument is that it is not industry’s place to regulate their own ethical activity, that is the role of the government. However, our government is scaling back on regulation in favour of privatization (for example, the privatization of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency). Whats more, the Canadian government fully supports the actions of Monsanto, regularly promoting their GE foods. We cannot wait for the government to act on our behalf, we have to act ourselves instead.

My advice: when considering an investment, find out what that company does and be sure you support it. Create a set of ethical criteria for your RRSP manager, and know what is in your portfolio. You might even want to choose a financial institution that has ethical criteria for accepting clients (.pdf), and invests in companies it deems to be having a positive impact (such as Vancouver City Savings). You don’t have to sacrifice making money, just make sure you are not accidentally supporting a company you have morally opposition to through your investments.

(Photo by Pete Carr, licensed under Creative Commons)

In a recent article printed in the Telegraph, Prince Charles had some strong words for big agribusiness. He says that GE crops are the the “biggest disaster environmentally of all time”, and that we should be focusing on food security instead of food production. The Prince of Wales does not normally speak out on such issues, but clearly the GE foods issue is very dear to him. Prince Charles has an organic farm.

According to Greenpeace, consumer rejection has driven biotech giant Monsanto to stop selling its genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST, makes cows produce 25% more milk, but it was banned in Canada in 1998 for animal welfare reasons, as well as in Europe. Consumers in the US have been consuming milk produced using rBGH for a decade.

The actions of consumers and businesses are what finally brought this product down. Some large businesses such as Starbucks and Ben and Jerry’s refused to use milk produced using rBGH, and beat Monsanto’s lawsuits claiming that they don’t have the right to label their products as “rBGH-Free”. More recently, Monsanto tried to fight to bring about laws in some US states that would prevent dairies from labeling “rBGH-Free”, but they lost. This is a great victory for our movement.

If we now draw a parallel with genetically engineered (GE) foods, it is easy to see that there is still hope. If more food was labeled, either through mandatory labeling, or through certification efforts like those of GE-Free Solutions, consumers could show that they do not want to eat GE products.

Activists, keep up the good work!

According to a documentary on homelessness aired on CBC’s Ideas last night, a program put in place last fall in the UK uses CCTV cameras to analyze peoples walk. They program identifies people who are walking in an abnormal way and raises an alert. The purpose of the system, as far as I can gather, is to single out the homeless, drunk and thieving from the general population so they can prevent crime. What you really end up with is a Ministry of Silly Walks. Monty Python was ahead of its time.