Trudeau did not slow down relief efforts, so give him a break

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, but who would be a politician? In particular, who would be a Prime Minister or President?
Case in point: when Justin Trudeau visited the Ottawa region community of Constance Bay recently to help with the ongoing sandbagging operation against flooding, of course it was going to end badly. One of the volunteers complained to Trudeau that he (and his security detail and the press corps that follow him everywhere) was holding up the relief efforts. The poor guy was trying his best, but various Conservative MPs and the right-wing press made hay by lambasting his efforts, blowing them off as insincere, meaningless, or even cynical, photo-ops (criticisms conspicuously not levelled at Conservative Ontario Premier Doug Ford, federal Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and other Conservative MPs and MPPs doing the same thing just a few days earlier).
But what's a mortal to do? NOT going there was not even an option, and would have laid Trudeau open to criticisms of Liberal elitist insensitivity.  Typically, to be seen not doing something is even worse than to be seen doing something badly. But how frustrating it just be to the right thing, knowing that it will still be criticized.
The PMs office did all the right things in checking in adclvance with the relief organizers that a visit would not impede efforts. After the event, an RCMP spokesperson confirmed that Trudeau did NOT in fact slow down sandbagging efforts at all. So, all this was purely partisan politics at play, individuals looking to score cheap points in an election year.

NEWS: Ground-breaking Taylor Swift video - ho, hum

I was amused to find an article - on the website of the august BBC, no less! - painstakingly deconstructing the new Taylor Swift music video.
I imagine it's just one of hundreds such articles littering the internet, because Ms. Swift is one hot commodity these days (and, make no mistake, she is a commodity). The new video for Me! Became the fastest music video in history to reach 10 million views (just two hours), and it hit 57 million in its first 24 hours, if you are about such things.
But what mainly amused me the breathless way the video was analyzed, with much talk of Easter eggs - which is probably this year's most overused phrase - and symbolism and arty references and what-not, in what is probably actually just another stock music industry product (because heaven forefend that a single be released without an accompanying video - now that WOULD be radical). Sure, the video's production values are high (read: expensive), but then Swift can afford to throw as much money at it as she likes, so why not?
And the music? Oh, just the usual foregettable sugary bubblegum. But the kids will probably love it.
**SPOILER ** Oh, and she might have a new cat! Check your Twitter and Instagram feeds now!

China's Belt and Road Initiative spectacularly badly-named

If you keep reading about China's "Belt and Road Initiative" and really àdon't know what it means, then you are almost certainly not alone.
Part of the problem is that the strategy is just really badly named. Up until 2016, it used to be called the "One Belt and One Road Initiative", but I guess the Chinese PR guys realized that that sounded a bit too pushy, a bit too my-road-or-the-high-road. It was also at one point known as the "Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road", which is likewise unlikely to pass muster in marketing focus groups. So, they ended up with Belt and Road, which is just plain confusing.

According to Wikipedia, what it is is a Chinese development strategy aimed at radically increasing Chinese influence and general dominance in global affairs throughout the world, but particularly among the poorer countries of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America and Oceania, as well as even some more developed parts of Central and Eastern Europe. It involves infrastructure investment, education, development of transportation corridors, power grids, real estate, resource extraction, and improving and modernizing industrial capacity  China has already invested an estimated $90 billion in these projects, and 71 countries are currently signed up for participation, including India, Russia, Thailand, New Zealand, Turkey, Poland, Hungary, and many more, representing in total (including China) a third of the world's GDP.
Part and parcel of the initiative is a complex web of hand-outs, business advice, loans, and what many Western commentators have characterized as "debt-trap diplomacy". Some in the West, and America in particular, is warning developing countries against being taken in by Chinese promises, and saddling themselves with decades of unmanageable and unsustainable debt. Recent cancellations of large-scale projects in Pakistan, Myanmar, Malaysia and Sierra Leone, over worries about the countries' ability to pay their share of construction costs, have made some countries a little more leery of signing on the dotted line.
However, many poorer countries are understandably enticed by the prospect of Chinese financing and technical expertise in building bridges, high speed railways, deep sea ports, and many other infrastructure projects that they would otherwise have no chance of achieving.
So what, then, is all this "belt and road" stuff? Well, supposedly, the "belt" part refers to overland routes for road and rail transportation, essentially a modern re-creation of the old Silk Road trading route (i.e. what I would probably call a "road"). The "road" part, on the other hand, refers to intercontinental sea routes (i.e. not roads at all). Maybe it loses something in the translation from Chinese, but it does seem spectacularly badly-named.

Official oil sands emissions estimates may be understating the problem

An aerial study by Environment Canada suggests that the carbon pollution by oil operations in northern Alberta's oil sands, already the largest single carbon polluter in the country, may be severely understated.
Analyzing air samples above four major oil sands operations, the study concluded that greenhouse gas emissions were an average of one-third higher per barrel of oil produced than the mines were reporting during the same period, with one offender (SynCrude, if we are naming names) showing about two-and-a-quarter more than reported.
This may have been just a snap-shot, as the mines in question are complaining, but it is indicative of a problem in the "bottom-up" method of reporting used for everything from reporting national emissions to calculating carbon taxes (bottom-up calculations rely on some ground measurement and a lot of mathematical modelling).
It also questions the wisdom of setting the fox in charge of the hen coop, so to speak, by relying on self-reporting by the oil companies. I don't know what kind of auditing procedures have been established, but clearly they are not sufficient, and perhaps some combination of bottom-up and top-down emissions estimates is needed.

Pharmaceutical pollution is the latest environmental issue needing attention

The presence of active pharmaceutical ingredients in our lake and river water is an acute and increasing problem.

A Pollution Probe/Clean Water Foundation study recently found traces of painkillers, antibiotics, anti-depressants and worse in Canada's Great Lakes and the rivers that feed them, backing up previous research by Ontario's Environment Ministry and the US Geological Survey.

In addition to expired or unused pharmaceuticals flushed down the toilet by consumers (and, of course, those that end up in waste water through our urine and feces), a big part of the problem arises from pharmaceutical manufacturing companies discharging untreated waste into sewers and rivers, which is inexcusable, and represents a larger problem than had previously been assumed (and admitted). Municipal waste-water treatment plants are just unable to adequately deal with these compounds which, of course, consequently end up in our drinking water, to say nothing of their effects on aquatic wildlife. The problem, then, must be dealt with at source, both through better education of consumers, who still insist on flushing this stuff down the loo, but increasingly at the manufacturing level.

Granted it is not easy to deal with the chemicals that make up the huge amount of pharmaceuticals we consume each year. Pharmaceutical companies can dispose of compounds and contaminated liquids by boiling it away and incinerating it (yes, this contaminates the air to some extent, but it is still a much better option than throwing it in the lakes where we get our drinking water). However, this is inefficient and energy intensive, and most pharma companies are unwilling to spend money on it.

Other solutions do exist, though, like the proprietary technology of companies like Vancouver-based Axine Water Technologies, which can install automated drug-destroying water technologies right at the pharma companies' manufacturing facilities. It uses electrochemical oxidation (no chemicals are required) to break up the harmful compounds into harmless trace gases like oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

But this too will cost money, and so what is needed - as usual - is government regulation to force Big Pharma to at least pretend to be responsible corporate citizens. And that requires political will, which appears to be sadly lacking.

Kernza is being touted as the new miracle grain

A new grain called "kernza" is being widely touted as a possible world-saving innovation (but then so was golden rice, and look how that turned out).

Kernza is a tiny little grain, just a fifth the size of a wheat grain, although scientists at the Land Institute in the US are trying to develop a larger version of the grain which might be more attractive to farmers and food producers (the Land Institute is the organization that is mainly responsible for kernza's development). They are also working on a dwarf variety which is expected to have improved bread-baking properties.

Kernza was supposedly developed from wheatgrass some 20 years ago, although as I understand it wheatgrass is just the early sprouts of a regular wheat plant, so I am not really sure how that works. Up until now, it has mainly been used in animal feed, but it is starting to enter the mainstream, and at least one brewery is already using it in their products. Pasta, pizza, bread and even a General Mills cereal (through its organic line, Cascadian Farms), all made from kernza, are available in the US if you know where to look for them.

And how is this new grain going to save the planet? Well, it's not, really, but it does have some advantages over regular grains. Principally, it is a perennial, and so does not require reseeding each year. Unlike wheat, corn, barley, etc, its roots can be left in the ground to regrow after harvesting, doing away with the need to clear fields, plough and reseed fields. This saves energy and reduces the farmers' chemical use and carbon footprint. Also, the plant's roots extend over 3 meters below the surface, helping to stabilize soil, retain water, and improve wildlife habitat. If that is not enough, it also traps carbon in roots roots, acting as a kind of carbon sink, as well as trapping nitrogen and preventing it from reaching streams and rivers. And did I mention that the crop is quite hardy, and well suited to the northern prairies of the USA and Canada, and it can be harvested using existing farm machinery?

It will be interesting to see if kernza takes off commercially. If you see it, buy it: it has to be better, ecologically speaking, than regular grains like corn and wheat.

Alberta reverts to type - oh, ye gods...

Ah, Jason Kenney. Where to start? It had to happen, of course. Alberta's little experiment with left-wing philosophy was never going to last, and Albertans were always going to revert to type, i.e. oil-smeared red-necked prima donnas. Really, don't get me started!
Still, it's depressing. Among many other depressing plans, Kenney's first actions are going to be to cut off oil supplies to next-door-neighbours British Columbia, to cancel Alberta's carbon tax (and thus set up an ongoing war with the federal Liberals), and to cancel the NDP's plan to close down the province's coal-fired power stations by 2030 (yes, Alberta still produces almost half of its electricity from coal, and its voters clearly consider this a Good Thing). And, of course, the underlying philosophy of the whole administration - if philosophy is the right word - is that oil=good, renewables=bad, and dirty tar sands=doubly good.
Alberta is Alberta again, with all that that entails. The east-west battle is resumed, and the fragile Albertan ego is once again making the rest of Canada uneasy. Ah, plus ça change... Oops, sorry, that was French.

Link between screen time and inattentiveness cannot be ignored

Yet another study has shown a strong link between screen time and ADHD in children, but we are still no closer to establishing a causal link. But do we even need a causal link?
The new Canadian study of 2,300 kindergarten-age children in Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver, indicates that children who spend more than two hours a day staring at screens (of any kind, whether TV, computer, tablet or phone) are over five times more likely to be inattentive, and seven times more likely to show symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than children who spend half an hour or less in front of screens.
Granted, the authors are not able to come out and say that the screen time is actually causing the inattentiveness and hyperactivity, due to the difficulty in screening out (no pun intended) other factors. In particular, children who spend less time in front of a screen also tend to be more physically active, which seems to some extent to counteract the effects of screen time.
But it is yet more evidence that less screen time is better than more screen time, and surely we are now at the stage where all this evidence cannot be denied or ignored.

UPDATE
Hard on the heels of that report comes one from the World Health Organization (WHO) which concludes that children under the age of one should not be exposed to ANY electronic screen time at all, and that older children, from two to four, should be limited to just one hour a day. Writing on the wall, or what?