Why does Russia care about Alberta separatism

While I am on the subject of disinformation and foreign political interference, the Alberta separatism movement, such as it is, is a prime target for foreign propaganda and interference. There's already plenty of home-grown disinformation and misinformation out there; a bit more from outside the country probably wouldn't get noticed. But it seems there's more of it going on than we realize.

While monitoring Russian disinformation campaigns targeting Ukraine and support for Ukraine in Canada, researchers were surprised to see that a lot of the mendacity emanating from Russian propaganda outlets like the Pravda Network, CopyCop, Storm 1516 and the Internet Research Angency was specifically targeting Alberta separatism. Not only are there large numbers of social media posts - hundreds of thousands - but complete websites (like AlbertaSeparatist.com) that purport to be grass-roots campaigns by aggrieved Albertans, but are actually being generated by Russian propaganda farms. AI-generated "slopaganda" is also being used to pollute the information environment, intensify grievances, and confuse legitimate debate with foreign manipulation.

I mean, you know this stuff happens. But, when you stop and think about it, what are they really trying to achieve? What is it to Russia whether Alberta separates or not? How does it merit such a concerted effort to them? Don't they have bigger fish to fry?

I can understand that the Trump administratation and the MAGA mob might have a vested interest in Alberta separation (and they are indeed attempting to influence the vote, albeit mainly thought more mainstream, and less illegal, conduits). But Russia?

DisinfoWatch says that Russian interference in the Alberta separatism debate "appears doctrinal, operational and sustained", all part of the Russian government's long history of exploiting divisive issues in Western democracies in general. There is much more detail on DisinfoWatch's website.

I get that, in its broad strokes at least. It just surprises me that the hawks in the Kremlin see this as an issue deserving of not-insignificant funds. And it's such a bore that we have to spend time and money guarding against these digital incursions.

Wind power under attack

And I don't mean from Donald Trump!

Sweden, always the overachiever, has managed to get to the point where it produces 99% of its electricity from "clean" sources (40% from hydro, 23% from wind, 2% from solar, and - OK - 27% from nuclear). Just 1.2% comes from fossil fuels. A pretty impressive achievement, even for an overachiever, and Swedes can justifiably congratulate themselves.

If you read Swedish social media, though, you'd get a very different impression. You'd think that Sweden's reliance on wind power in particular is excessive and somehow dangerous. You'd think that most of the country was up in arms against all this wrong-headed reliance on cheap, non-polluting wind energy. 

There are four main narratives: the wind industry is run by greedy developers putting naked profit before environmental and social good; wind power is being imposed by distant political or economic elites on unwilling local populations; wind turbines are harmful to nature and wildlife; and wind power is inherently destabilizing, technologically unviable, and economically unfeasible.

Of course, almost all of the online posts are disinformation (deliberately deceiving), those that aren't just misinformation (merely incorrect or out-of-context), and all of these contentions have been repeatedly disproved by reputable studies over many years. 

What's more, these attacks on the wind industry appear to be coordinated. Most of the attack posts seem to have been written in Sweden, but a good percentage of them are from France, Norway, Finland, UK and Germany. Analysis shows that those from the UK generate the most engagement, followed by Germany, Norway and France. Engagement from Swedish posts seems to be much lower. There doesn't seem to be a comparable backlash against solar, hydro, or even nuclear energy.

It's not clear where these social media posts are coming from, and how - or even if - they are being coordinated. It seems that they may be emanating from political groups hanging onto Trump's coattails. They seems to be attempts, presumably by the far right, to attack the business model of European companies and to weaponize anti-EU sentiment, or just to discredit the status quo. Just as in America, unscrupulous populist politicians can use such sentiments for electoral gain, regardless of whether they are based on truth or reality.

It seems there's no such thing as paradise, whether socially, environmentally or politically. Someone always wants to crap on it.

Accent-masking AI tech just another step down the slippery slope

The wholesale adoption of articial intelligence (AI) has raised all sorts of red flags and complaints, and some of its applications do seem pretty morally grey (or at least tone deaf). This is one I hadn't anticipated, though.

Canadian telecom Telus has started using AI-driven accent-correcting technology in its call centres, as well as in its internal phone operations. The technology, provided by a third party company Tomato.ai, uses speech-to-speech models to transform live audio. It is designed to preserve the speaker's voice and "emotional tone", whole addressing mispronunciations and the sometimes hard-to-understand accents of many call centre agents working from overseas (or even from within Canada).

Of course, this has raised hackles. Opponents say that any kind of deception of this kind should be either stopped, or at least Canadians should be informed up-front that AI is being used, particularly as many call centre functions are being outsourced overseas, depriving Canadians of job opportunities. Canada has seen a substantial amount of customer service related job reductions in recent years, particularly within the telecom sector.

There again, it is argued, the technology improves operational efficiency, thus saving Canadians money in the end. It helps speed up calls, helps customers find good solutions, and protects service agents from harassment and discrimination. That may be the case, but it is a solution to a problem of the company's own creation (off-shoring call centres to save money).

Should Canadians have the right not to be deceived by AI technology, as telecom unions are arguing? Probably. Does it really matter? Well, yes, it kind of does, particularly from the point of view of AI-induced job losses. Why don't we just go the whole hog and have AI man the phones directly, rather than just deceiving customers like this? Well, because AI is just not that good yet. But it will be soon.

A generational ban on smoking

I don't know anyone who likes smoking. Even people who smoke don't tend to like smoking. Most countries have been discouraging it (i.e. making it more unpleasant and more onerous) for decades now. There is a distinct stigma against smoking now. Hardly anywhere has actually banned it, though.

Britain is now part of an exclusive club that is moving to actually ban it. It's doing so by what is usually known as a "generational ban" on tobacco: a couple of weeks ago, Britain passed a law whereby anyone born after 1 January 2009 (i.e. those under 18 years old on New Year's Day 2027) will find it illegal to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products in British shops. Or rather, it is illegal for shops to sell cigarettes to them. Ever. 

The ban is to begin on January 1st 2027. Going forward, the legal age will increase by one year annually. Thus, by 2037, for example, no-one under the age of 28 would be allowed to buy cigarettes; by 2050, the age requirement would be 41.

So, the whole of the current younger generation - and subsequent generations, in perpetuity, at least in theory - will never be able to smoke (legally). This conjures up the prospect, one day, of a whole country where no-one smokes. Unless, of course, the law is later repealed - and you have to believe that it will be one day - smoking will be actively prohibited. 

Some are calling it the boldest public health move in generations. Healthcare advocates and cancer charities are lauding the bold move (smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death, disability and ill health). Some conservatives are worried about its effects on employment in the industry, and others are howling about government overreach. But, in general, there has been a surprising consensus across the political spectrum, and it does seem like the legislation is indeed going through.

The only other country to have passed a similar law is the Maldives. New Zealand was on the cusp of it until a change in government derailed the legislation. Also, 22 individual towns in the US state of Massachusetts have also passed generational bans (although that does make it rather easy to evade...)

In the meantime, though, all eyes are on the UK. How will it be policed? How easy will it be to evade? How will stores check people's ages?  Will there be riots? How will black market smugglers be dealt with? How will the government cope without such a large tax generator? What about people with clinical addictions? (In theory, very few current under-18s should be addicts.) 

A large-scale social and medical experiment is going forward before our very eyes. It will be fascinating.

Canada Strong Fund is many things, but not a sovereign wealth fund

The Carney government has made a big song and dance around the announcement last week of the Canada Strong Fund, which it calls "Canada's first sovereign wealth fund". Unfortunately, Canada's new Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the announcement "raised more questions than it.answered".

A soveign wealth fund is not in itself a bad idea. Other countries have them, although the only one that is ever referenced in practice is Norway's, which is the biggest and the best. The idea is to store and invest surplus profits from resource extraction industries to provide funds and a buffer for when those resources finally, inevitably, run out. The ever-sensible Norway has done that in spades.

The Canada Strong Fund is not that.

Norway has a largely (although not completely) state-owned oil industry, so it was in a position to salt away large surpluses over the last several decades, while taxing people heavily to provide everyday services. Alberta could have done something similar by salting away tax revenue from its lucrative oil and gas industry, if it had had the foresight decades ago. But, for ideological reasons, it preferred to use those funds to massively reduce its taxes - the political equivalent of a spoilt kid choosing instant gratification.

But, as Andrew Coyne argues in the Globe and Mail, more eloquently than I ever could, the Canada Strong Fund has hardly any of the characteristics of a sovereign wealth fund. For one thing it has been set up using existing government funds, which, given that it doesn't actually have any surplus funds, means that it has borrowed $25 billion on the open market. Or, if you prefer, taken $25 billion out of the pockets of taxpayers in order to invest it on their behalf.

It's not at all clear when and how the fund will be used. Presumably, it is not being invested just for the hell of it, although, as the government tells it, it's for "generating strong, commercial returns". Umm, OK. It's not even clear that it can make more money than the additional national debt interest that has been incurred to create it. We are told that we can invest in it ourselves (although we are warned that returns may be "limited"). But government bonds of various types already exist; do we really need some kind of goverment mutual fund as well.

If it is intended to fund those "nation-building projects" the government keeps talking about (although not actually acting upon, as far as I can see), then there are already a plethora of government investment and infrastructure banks, funds, guarantee corporations, etc. We don't really need more, do we? It is envisaged as complementing the existing efforts of private industry, but, as Mr. Coyne points out, if the projects are commercially viable, then they probably don't need the government to invest in them.

Mr. Coyne has described it as a leveraged private equity fund, rather than a sovereign wealth fund. Is that really where we want to be parking $25 billion of much needed national capital? Wouldn't it be better utilized actually spending it on things we need? Aren't we experiencing a "rainy day", right now? Or - radical idea - directly spending it on people in need?

Mark Carney is a money guy. He knows how national finances work better than most. We are probably lucky to have him. He's certainly much better than the alternative: angry man Pierre Poilievre and the lacklustre Conservatives. But Carney seems to have converted into a consummate politician in a just a few short months, adept at telling people what they want to hear, and promising the moon while delivering a balloon. (And, in the process, largely abandoning his commitment to the environment, which was once a major plank of his philosophy.)

This is not one of his great ideas.

Winners and losers from the US-Israeli war on Iran

An analysis of the winners and losers in the US-Israel war on Iran involves a long list and a short list.

Among the losers can be listed: the Iranian people, the Iranian regime, the Lebamese people, the Gulf countries, the American people, the global economy and consumers everywhere, Donald Trump, Israel and Bejamin Netanyahu, Ukraine.

Winners? China, Russia, fossil fuel companies, drone producers and the weapons indistry (which, coincidentally, includes Ukraine!), and maybe the renewable energy industry.

Good job, Donnie!

Proof that Canada's economy is too dependent on the USA

I came across.an interesting graph - I do like a good graph! - in an article about how maybe Justin Trudeau was not the economic Antichrist the Conservatives paint him as, but how external events were at least as important as home-grown policies in the challenges Canada's economy has had to face over the last decade or so. This is not an attempt to rehabilitatee Trudeau - the article is quite critical of the man and the policies, unfairly so I would say - merely an attempt to remove the spin and look at the Canadian economy dispassionately.

Anyway, the graph, above, shows the extent to which American tariffs and other US trade policies have affected employment in Canada, by splitting out employment in industries dependent on US demand from other industries.

The glaring difference is of course greatest since Trump 2.0 began in early 2025. But the effect has been in force since at least 2016 (Trump 1.0), and even continued apace during Joe Biden's administration (Biden, lest we forget, was also a keen America First guy). Employment in other industries has actually been very strong (and increasingly so) throughout the whole period.

If ever anything justified our current attempt to diversify our trade away from America, this chart is it.

Trump selects a Surgeon General nominee purely based on merit

And now, right back to... Donald Trump. 

Trump's new nominee for the vacant position for Surgeon General is someone called Nicole Saphier. You probably won't have heard of her unless you watch Fox News. She's a radioligist (so, almost a doctor) who does an occasional segment on the right-wing news show in which she mainly engages in culture war issues, and only incidentally in "medical" matters, where she espouses some rather iffy stances on vaccinations and transgender ideology, among other things.

But you only have to see a picture of Ms. Saphier to get a pretty clear idea of why Trump selected her. The man has a certain recognizable style. Are you seeing a trend here?

I kind of feel sorry for the poor woman in some ways. How is she supposed to head up a huge medical bureaucracy with zero experience and not much medical knowledge? What could possibly go wrong? There again, she could always say no...