While the topic of net neutrality has been on the rise, leading up to the US vote on whether to get rid off it or keep it, which will happen on December 14th. Despite the fact that this vote will happen exclusively in the United States, the impact will stretch far beyond that, as many countries, including Canada, mimic the US policies and net neutrality may be included.

So why does net neutrality matter? To answer this question, it is worth examining what the world would look like with or without net neutrality. Well, currently we do enjoy net neutrality. Specifically, we pay internet service providers (ISPs) a flat rate to have access to internet, where we can do as we please. To most, it should come intuitively that that is the basic nature of the internet: people’s ideas cannot be censored by governments or anyone else. In a way, the internet does not tolerate censorship and corruption.

So, if net neutrality is revoked on December 14th, there would be drastic changes to the way we use internet. For example, in addition to paying a flat rate to the ISPs, customers will find that this does not include Youtube or Facebook or Twitter. That would be odd…The reason for that is that net neutrality is the only thing preventing the ISPs, that are just profit-hungry, from blocking whatever website and internet-based services they want. If that becomes a reality, the very way we interact on the internet will be controlled and monitored by the ISPs. To make things worse, since internet provision is relatively monopolized, there would not be any other options. It would be either submission to the ISPs and letting them dictate what you see on the internet or not using internet at all.

While the United Nations has recently declared that internet is a basic human right, the ISPs in the US are investing millions of dollars on an attempt to take that right away from the US citizens. That is happening in the country that have gone above and beyond to preserve its freedoms. The issues of net neutrality does have a huge impact on personal freedoms that define countries like Canada and the United States, and therefore, should be a mainstream debate.

What should the role of government be when it comes to economy? Today, the free-market model seems to be the most prosperous and dominant across the world. So should the government listen to free-market economists who promote the idea that governments should stick to fixing market failures when they arise?

Or should the governments do more? After all, if government enters the economy, like a private entrepreneur , it would be the most influential, resource-abundant player in the economy. Such capabilities may potentially lead to technological breakthroughs and overall economic growth. But they may also lead to failures and this is where governments differ from private entrepreneurs. Government resources come from taxpayer’s money, whereas private companies get their funds from private investors. While private entrepreneurs answer directly to their investors, governments answer to all of the taxpayers. Taxpayers do not have a say in what the government would be doing as an active player in the economy because it is logistically impossible. There cannot be a coherent discussion among millions of taxpayers. So the key difference between private entrepreneurs and governments is that private entrepreneurs get their funding from willing parties that acknowledge the high risks of such ventures, while governments get their money from millions of citizens, some of which would not want it to spend taxpayer money unnecessarily. By unnecessarily, I mean investing money in risky start-ups, something that private capital venturers usually do.

The decision whether governments should act more along the lines of private venture capitalist is unclear. There is opportunity of economic and innovation growth in doing so, but it does not come without a cost. The cost is accepting that government will undoubtedly fail here and there, losing taxpayer money. Is that something we should be okay with? Or is it something that we should leave to private venture capitalists?

Apple’s tax evasion has been among the most recent headlines. There is a good reason behind it, this topic raises questions that should not remain unanswered. Is anything going to be done about big corporate companies stashing away profits in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes? This is not the first time a big corporation have been caught on tax evasion charges. Companies like Amazon, Starbucks, UPS and Coca-Cola are among those who have been implicated in tax avoidance.

Why do these corporations keep doing it? Currently, tax avoidance is generating serious attention and has potential to hurt these corporations. Clearly, there is a big risk to tax avoidance but it does not seem big enough. The case of Apple shows that even the biggest, most prominent and wealthy corporations in the world choose to take the morally-questionable route of tax evasion. Why do I say “morally” questionable? It is because legally speaking there is a loophole, making the practice of tax evasion relatively easy and takes out criminal responsibility. What does this say about the state of corporate social responsibility in some of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Apple is not the first example of a big corporation evading taxes. Yet, the culture does not seem to change. Is the case of Apple big enough to finally do something about it? Or is it one of those cases that generate lots of attention for a little while only to have people forget about it and move on? This is the narrative that needs to be considered. Unless something is being done about tax evasion, there will be new cases of corporations doing it. Ultimately, it matters because it exposes the nature of our societies, countries and cultures. Currently, we are living in the state where regular, hard-working people pay close to half of their earnings in taxes, while wealthy companies pay less than a percent of their profits.

The UN weather agency has recently reported that the CO2 emissions are the highest they have been in 800,000 years. (Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/co2-levels-record-1.4378091) While it is fair to say that global climate change has been one of the leading concerns for the global community, this news may still come as a surprise. Personally, I found it shocking that despite all the effort to battle climate change, CO2 levels rise rapidly. After all, most of the climate change articles talk about improvements in green technology. So how come for all of our solar panels, electric cars and renewable energy, greenhouse gasses keeps rising?

What are the consequences of mainstream media focusing primarily on positive news, in regards to the climate change? Positive news in general makes us feel more accomplished, it makes us feel that we are on the right track to our goals…When it comes to the topic of climate change, this type of thinking is dangerous. It is dangerous because it makes us believe that we are doing a good job battling climate change. It makes us believe that if keep doing what we are doing, we will reach our goals. However, the most recent news by the UN weather agency shows us that it is not at all the case. Apparently, we are not even close to our goals.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what we believe and what the real situation. We think that driving Teslas and investing in a solar panel is enough, while it turns out that the situation is worse than ever. We, as a global community, have not done enough to deserve the feeling that things are going to be fine. Once there is a steady decline in the CO2 levels, maybe we will have the luxury of having this mentality. But today is not the day.

What can we take away from all this? One thing is clear: we cannot allow ourselves to be ignorant of what the real situation is, no matter whether it is positive or negative. Mainstream media is a powerful tool to sway the public opinion. As such, it should not be making us feel better about battling global climate change. It should be telling us facts as they are. Today, the fact is that we are in danger of leaving the world a lot less habitable for the future generations.

Ever since the events of 2014, when Ukraine exiled its corrupt, pro-Russian government and Russia annexed Crimea, the relationship between the two countries are tense. To most, the fundamentals are obvious: Ukraine is taking a pro-Western approach (by working on joining the EU) and Russia is very much against it and it makes sense. After all, despite the Cold War being long over, there is still a stand-off between the West and Russia. Ukraine longing to join the West would mean a significant loss for Russia.

As a result, a big part of the struggle between Ukraine and Russia is taking place online, rather than on battlefields or in diplomatic meetings. More specifically, it has take a form of cyber attacks that Russia is now infamous for. While the impacts of cyber attacks by Russian hackers may not be too clear, it is not the case in Ukraine. Such cyber attacks have been responsible for government website and even electricity outages in Ukraine. While this may not sound like drastic damages, the implications of these attacks are significant.

They are significant because Ukraine is a vulnerable country, trying to establish its new government and more importantly, its  independent national identity. If Ukraine is to do so, it cannot remain vulnerable to cyber attacks simply because it undermines its position as a country. We have seen that cyber attacks caused major debates about the democratic processes in the United States, one of the most powerful country in the world. This alone shows that cyber attacks could be a powerful tool to disrupt governments and economies and the sooner Ukraine starts prioritizing cyber attacks as a threat, the sooner it will be able to achieve its national goals.

So UBC has laid out its transportation plan , which was adopted in 1999 with some tweaks in 2014. On paper it seems like a progressive, green initiative, which fits in perfectly into the larger UBC and Vancouver-wide sustainable development plans.

It has 3 big targets:

1. Make UBC a walking, cycling and busing university by 2040. (Which means that at least two thirds of commuting to be done by those means)
2. Reduce one person per car driving to UBC.
3. Maintain the number of private vehicles at UBC below the 1997 levels.

It is 2017 now and since it has been more than 17 years since the original approval of the plan, surely there has been some progress made towards achieving the aforementioned goals. However, as a student who has been at UBC every year since 2011, it is hard to see the changes. A quick note that everything said from this point forward is a personal opinion.

In reality, there has not been any improvement in the speed or comfort of commuting to UBC in years. All the efforts to get rid of cars on campus end up resulting in increased parking fees, which does not matter. Most of the students who drive to UBC either are very well-off and do not care for increases in parking fees (judging by the average value of cars parked at UBC) or students who legitimately do not have a choice of commuting by other means. What this looks like in daily life on campus is that most of the cars on campus look like they are straight out of a car show. Not only it is hard to see the reduction in numbers, it might matter to UBC that there are lots and lots of cars on campus that are not only eco-unfriendly but actually quite more damaging to the environment than a Toyota Camry. As a car enthusiast, I see way too many cars that pass me by on campus that have 500+ horsepower V8 engines. So when I hear that UBC is trying to eliminate driving to campus, all I see is that it is trying to eliminate it for those students who are already not doing it for a variety of reason, including financial limits.

This message is only reinforced by the fact that UBC keeps building new parking lots. If we are to reduce the number of private vehicles on campus, I have hard times trying to fit new parking lots into the UBC transportation plan. The only plausible explanation that I have for doing that is profit maximization. Considering that so many of the students who live on campus, and by definition, should not require a car, it is surprising that there are lots of people who do live on campus and drive a $100,000, which is parked conveniently at UBC parking lots. I am sorry UBC, but it is hard to take the transportation plan seriously when every move you make screams profit maximization.

Issue that does not make the news headlines often is the global water scarcity. With water being at the very basis of human needs, it may be surprising for some that 1.2 billion people do not have access to clean water.  Every year, 3.5 million children under the age of 5 die of waterborne diseases.

Some believe that the answer to the above issues is water privatization. At the forefront of this thinking is Nestle, the company who has a track record of morally-deficient policies and practices, namely having a cyber  monitor Internet criticism and shape discussions in social media and battling the labeling of GMO-filled products.

The basic idea behind water privatization is to have multinational beverage companies with  water-well privileges over citizens. While this may look like a viable solution due to economic properties of private firms, such as abundance of funds to establish quality control, already developed distribution channels, there are some major fundamental issues with such a policy.

The first and foremost goal of large, multinational organizations is to make profits. There is no reason to think that Nestle or Coca-Cola company are not going to extend their profit-oriented mentality to fresh water markets. One single thing to take away from this is that private companies are economic, and in economics, equality or fairness are not a concern. Distribution water for profit, by definition, cannot solve the shortage of fresh water around the globe.

Secondly, privatization of water implies that access to drinkable water is not a basic human right. As wrong as it sounds, this point of view is not even hidden. For example, the chairman of Nestle has openly said that access to fresh water is not “a public right”. So by Nestle’s definition, not every human being should be able to drink safe, drinkable water because some do not deserve it. If fresh water sources are privatized, it is not us, the people, who will be deciding whether we can drink safe water when we need it. It will be the small number of rich executives.

Lastly, when a specific fresh water source is privatized, it means that no one but the owner of the rights have access to that water. It is up to that owner, whomever that may be, to decide whether they want to share it with the public or not. It just so happens that many villages, towns and in some cases even countries have access to just 1 fresh water source. So if it privatized, the public does not have any alternative. In essence, privatization of water can only worsen the already-existing fresh water scarcity.

What to take out of this reading is that the issue of water privatization needs to gain widespread knowledge before it is too late. In light of so many different events happening around the globe, water privatization is lost somewhere and it is not a part of the biggest debates and narratives. While private companies, like Nestle, are quietly advancing their agenda to privatize fresh water supplies around the world, there needs to be a strong public opposition to make sure it does not happen. Reading and talking about it is the first step towards successful opposition of companies that want to take away some of the most fundamental human rights, access to safe drinkable water.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Policy Brief #1: Flood Risk Management: What is the Role Ahead for the Government of Canada?

1. Author: Jason Thislethwaite is a CIGI fellow, who focuses on the climate change, environmental risks and recommendations for policies aiming to mitigate climate change.  
2. Topic: Flood risk management being an effective alternative strategy for the government of Canada, which currently relies on traditional hazard-based model of flood management that fails to take into account possible consequences of floods.
3. Purpose of the brief: to showcase that current approach that the Canadian government has in regards to flood management is unsustainable and to present flood risk management as a suitable replacement.
4. Table of contents: Introduction, Canada’s outdated approach to flood management, flood risk management, policy recommendations, conclusion
5. Is this a good policy: This policy outlines the root of the problem with Canada’s flood management policy, which is the lack of attention to potential consequences of floods. What makes this policy brief good is that it offers a solution in the form of flood risk management as well as suggestions to how make the transition from hazard-based model to risk-management model smoothly.

Policy Brief #2: Strengthening the health system for mental health in Zambia

1. Publisher: WHO, specialized agency of the United Nations whose which concerns itself with international public health.
2. Topic: Despite mental illness being a large part of disease in Zambia, there is a lack of attention and funding towards battling it.
3. Purpose of the brief: to raise awareness and present evidence of mental illness in Zambia in order to establish appropriate health policies.
4. Table of contents: the problem, policy options, implementation considerations, next steps.
5. Is this a good policy: Despite offering two policy options (incremental vs. comprehensive), this policy brief lacks clear and comprehensive suggestions to battle mental health in Zambia. Shortly, it points to the problem of mental health and presents evidence to support it but it does not present recommendations. The issues of mental health is not unique to Zambia; it is present in developed countries that allocate considerable resources to fight it. So, the lack of recommendations makes this policy brief inconclusive and incomplete as it is unlikely that this policy brief presents enough information for Zambia to develop an effective policy to battle mental illness on its own.

Policy Brief #3: Child poverty and disparities in Vanuatu

1. Publisher: UNICEF, a United Nations program that provides developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries.
2. Topic: Vanuatu’s children living in poverty and the lack of proper governmental programs to battle it.
3. Purpose of the brief: to raise awareness of Vanuatu children living in poverty and suggest appropriate policies to battle child poverty in Vanuatu
4. Table of contents: Introduction, poverty and children, the pillars of child well-being, policy recommendations
5. Is this a good policy brief: It is a good policy brief because it outlines the problem and its potential implications and supports these claims with empirical evidence. Lastly, it includes recommendations and necessary steps for the government to lessen the impact of poverty on Vanuatu’s children.