Productivity and life expectancy are inversely correlated

Here's an interesting, and probably statistically spurious, factoid: economic output per person seems to be inversely correlated with life expectancy.

Best illustrated by the graphic above (which I had to scan from the print copy of the Globe and Mail article for some reason), GDP per person (what you might call productivity) of G7 countries, in order, are: USA, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Britain, Japan. Average life expectancy in those countries, IN REVERSE ORDER (worst to best) are: USA, Britain, Germany, Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Japan.

Almost an exact match (apart from Britain, which seems to manage poor productivity AND short lives).

While this is not necessarily a causative relationship, it COULD be. It is certainly a striking correspondence.

Does the world still run on oil?

The other thing the current oil crisis has brought home to me is the extent to which we still rely on oil. A depressing article in the Globe and Mail entitled "What energy transition? The Middle East war shows the world still runs on oil", pointed out that 87% of total global energy in the 1970s was from fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and that figure today is still 81%. 

And that does seem to be the case: the Energy Institute's 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy shows that primary energy consumption is filled 31.7% by oil, 26.5% by coal, 23.3% by natural gas (so, 81.5% by fossil fuels in total), 4.0% by nuclear, 6.4% by hydroelectricity, and 8.2% by other renewables (mainly wind and solar). So, 18.6% could be called carbon-free. Furthermore, overall energy consumption is still increasing at a pretty steady clip.

A more granular look shows that the contibution from renewables is still increasing, and increasing faster than the other sources, much of that due to China. So, the picture could be substantially different in a few years time. But it's still a pretty depressing picture, and all the more worrying since the move away from fossil fuels has noticeably slowed in the last year or so, mainly due to the single-handed influence of one, Donald Trump.

Why is oil spiking when the US is the largest oil producer?

If only 20% of the world's oil is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, and that Strait is in dire straits due to the USA's war with Iran (and Iran's war with everywhere else), why are oil prices going through the roof?

Oil is currently (6th March 2026) hovering around $90 a barrel - $86, $88, $99, depending on which metric you look at - and is expected to leap past $100 very soon, levels not seen since the early days of the Russia-Ukraine war. It was below $60 just a couple of months ago.

Doesn't that seem like an exaggerated reaction? I mean, 80% of oil production still goes nowhere near the Strait of Hormuz. The USA is the largest single producer followed by Russia (here's a fascinating animation of how the main producers have changed over the years). But in terms of regions, the Middle East is still the biggest producer, followed by North America and then Russia and its satellites, and all of Middle East's production is being affected by the US-Iran conflict, regardless of how it is transported.

Another factor is the destination of the oil that flows though the Strait of Hormuz: some 89% of the oil that is shipped through the Strait is bound for Asia, and 83% of.the liquid natural gas. So, it's regional effect is much more marked than the overall average might suggest. The markets take that into account too.

Also, oil markets, like stock exchanges, do tend to over-react to everything before correcting themselves if the sky turns out not to be falling after all.

BC opts for permanent daylight saving time - but is that wise?

British Columbia is that brave Canadian province willing to put its money where its mouth is and do away with those tedious biannual clock changes. 

Several other provinces have been talking about it for years, but BC is actually making it happen. This comes after a "public engagement" (actually involving just 5% of the population) voted overwhelmingly (93%!) to adopt year-round daylight saving time.

It seems clear that few people really want the hassle of clock changes every six or eight months, but why choose daylight saving time (DST) not standard time (ST)? 

It's argued that people want longer, lighter evenings in the winter, and even that it will increase winter tourism, which seems like a bit of a stretch. 

Except BC's public consultations didn't even offer the option of permanent ST, only DST, so it's not known which option the populace would actually prefer. There's certainly a vocal contingent (minority? majority? who knows?) that would prefer to see ST become the year-round permanent time, and most health experts argue that, from a health and safety point of view, standard time, not daylight saving time, is much preferable.

It's further argued by BC that DST would align better with neighbouring states Washington, Oregon and California, all of which also WANT to switch to year-round DST. But states require federal buy-in before they can make such a change - Donald Trump's personal seal of approval? Like he's going to offer California and Oregon anything they might want! - so BC is now out of sync with those states in the winter, at least for the foreseeable future. 

It's interesting that BC is more concerned with aligning with Western US states than with its eastern neighbour, Alberta. Alberta too is considering changing to year-round time, although the last referendum, in 2021, narrowly voted against it. Further to the east, Saskatchewan is already on permanent time - and has been since 1966! - but they chose ST, not DST, just to confuse things.

It will be interesting to see whether BC's unilateral decision opens the floodgates on clock-changing in Canada. Whether it's the "right" decision or not remains to be seen - I'm sure there's an army of chronologists, health researchers and statisticians out there monitoring its every move.

Opening up alcohol sales not having the expected result

When Doug Ford opened up Ontario corner stores and gas stations to alcohol sales back in 2024, there was talk of a potential dangerous spike in alcohol consumption, as it became much more convenient and more poorly regulated. I confess I was part of that talk.

What actually happened, though, was that a whole load of Beer Store outlets closed down as a result of the increased competition, and fewer convenience stores than expected took up the offer of booze trading. The upshot, in retrospect? Alcohol sales are actually down significantly, by about 3% in volume and 3.4% in dollar terms. A graphical representation makes this very clear.

This perhaps surprising outcome - almost certinly not what Mr. Ford was looking for - is ppartly a result of fewer and less convenient Beer Store outlets, but also partly a demographic result of a greater preponderance of Gen Z youngsters in the population, a cohort that is notoriously (if that is the right word) shunning alcohol consumption.

Remember this quote from JD Vance

I actually don't remember it at the time, but here's a great quote from US Vice-President JD Vance during the 2024 presidential campaign:

"Our interest, I think very much, is in not going to war with Iran. It would be a huge distraction of resources. It would be massively expensive to our country."

In a later podcast interview, Vance even opined that a war between Israel and Iran would be "the most likely and most dangerous scenario" for provoking World War III.

Yikes! If you'd been thinking that you hadn't heard much from Mr. Vance throughout this whole US-Iran war thing, well, that might be part of the reason.

War or no war. Mispoke or no mispoke

There are those in the MAGA camp who seem unsure whether the US is actually in a war. 

For example, Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin, a prominent Trump ally, led his Fox News interview with "We are not at war with Iran". Period. Then he wobbled. "This is war, and we're taking out the threat." Ah, right. When pressed, he clarified: "We haven't declared war. They declared war on us, but we haven't." But, another reporter pointed out, "Just now you said, 'This is war'. You called it war." "OK, well, that was a misspoke', Mullin concluded. Clear as mud, then.

Mr. Mullin is not alone. Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham both seem to think that American is not at war with Iran.

For context, there is an interesting article by the Globe and Mail's Standards Editor about the use of the word "war" in press reports, and when "strikes" seamlessly morphed into full-scale "war". Essentially, it's nothing to do with a declaration of war - the last time the USA actually declared war was 1942! - but more to do with "the scope and intensity of the fighting".

Trump invaded Iran based on a "feeling"?

After a great long post the other day about the US war against Iran, here's a much shorter, but no less damning, one.

When the USA invaded Iraq back in in 1991, George H.W. Bush got United Nations backing and a vote in Congress before he went in to Iraq, which had just invaded little Kuwait.

When the USA invaded Iraq again in 2003, his son George W. also obtained Congressional approval and, although he didn't actually get UN Security Council clearance, he did at least have the support of a good 40 misguided members of the UN. The issue, you might remember, was his conviction that Iraq had accumulated a stock of "weapons of mass destruction" (a phrase you don't often hear these days, but basically we are talking about nuclear bombs). That claim turned out to be demonstrably false, but Bush and a majority in the US Congress, as well as whole host of other countries, and even apparently most Iraqis, did believe it to be true.

Fast forward to February 2026, and Donald Trump has set in motion a full-scale war on Iran without telling a soul - not Congress, not the UN, not the Security Council, just the leaders of Israel (who can only loosely be described as having a soul). Trump made his decision because, as he says himself, he had a "feeling" that Iran was imminently about to attack the US (or possibly Israel, or possibly some other country): "It was my opinion that they were going to attack first. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that."

Wow. So, there you have it in a nutshell: Trump declared a war in which hundreds have already died, and the whole world economy has been upended, based on a hunch, a feeling, an opinion. Watch the video. It will creep you out forever.