What is this "nuclear warming"?

I don't pick up on every piece of drivel that emanates from Donald Trump's filthy mouth - many others are doing that - but some of it is just so weird it's actually fascinating (in a depressing kind of way).

Take, for example, "nuclear warming". First introduced by Trump back in April 2023, in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Trump asserted, "When I listen to people talk about global warming, that the ocean will rise in the next 300 years by one eighth of an inch, and they talk about how this is our big problem. Our big problem is nuclear warming, but nobody even talks about it." Well, there's a good reason for that...

He mentioned it again in what critics are calling "the dumbest climate conversation of all time", an "interview" of sorts between Trump and fellow weirdo Elon Musk in August 2024. At one point in this epic of gobbledygook, Trump offered up, "The one thing that I don't understand is that people talk about global warming, or they talk about climate change, but they never talk about nuclear warming". 

Now, granted, this was the same interview in which Trump mused about rising sea levels creating more ocean-front property, and Musk suggested that the only compelling reason to ditch fossil fuels is that they will one day run out. So, we are not exactly looking at mainstream climate science here. But what is this "nuclear warming"? It was never quite explained.

Trump revisited the concept once again at the beginning of September, warming to his theme, so to speak. At a rally in New York, he first poo-poo'd global warming: "When people talk about global warming, I say the ocean is going to go down [sic] 100th of an inch within the next 400 years. That's not our problem. Our problem is nuclear warming, and we better be smart, and we better have smart people at the top who know how to deal. Because these people don't know how to deal."

So, there's a clue, right? Is this nuclear warming something to do with card games, and we need smart people who can deal well? It's still not very clear to me, and I would very much like to understand. Maybe it's related to Pierre Poilievre's dystopian vision of the Liberals' carbon tax leading to a "nuclear winter"?

The carbon emissions of passenger vehicles

Leafing through a Guide to Responsible Investing magazine, I came across an article by Kelly Hirsch of VanCity Investment Management which made me think. The article is mainly about how green hydrogen can help in decarbonizing transportation, but what really struck me was her brief analysis of the carbon emissions of the transportation sector.

The transportation sector accounts for about 25% of Canada's emissions (cf. 29% in USA, and just 12.9% globally). Of that, road transportation accounts for about 74% (the rest being from marine transport and aviation). And, of that, passenger vehicles (cars, motorcycles, buses) account for 60%, with the rest being from road freight, i.e. trucking.

So, doing the math, passenger vehicle transportation therefore accounts for 25% x 74% x 60% = 11% of total carbon emissions in Canada (and a little bit more in the USA). Now, you could see that as a significant amount, but it is actually much less than I was expecting. With all the fuss we make about electric cars and hybrids and gas-guzzlers, that whole sector only accounts for about a tenth of our emissions?

I don't know where Ms. Hirsch obtained her figures, but I have no reason to suspect them. And I love my electric car, but I will probably read news articles about reducing carbon emissions from cars slightly differently henceforth.

Taliban (hilariously) responds to allegations of gender discrimination

The Taliban's response to criticism is priceless. 

Four countries - Canada, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands - with the support of at least 20 other countries, are starting legal proceedings against the Taliban for violating the UN convention on women, to which Afghanistan is technically a party. The writ says, in part, "We condemn the gross and systematic human rights violations and abuses in Afghanistan, particularly the gender-based discrimination against women and girls". It also says, for what it's worth, that they do not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of the country.

Since seizing power in 2021, the Taliban has barred girls from education beyond 6th grade, banned them from public spaces and most jobs, and forbidden them from showing their bare faces and raising their voices in public.

Nothing daunted, a Taliban spokesperson - sorry, spokesMAN - responded, "It is absurd to accuse the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan of human rights and gender discrimination". They purport to genuinely believe that human rights are protected in Afghanistan and that nobody faces discrimination. They believe that, because their actions are in line with (their interpretation of) Islamic Sharia law, they can't possibly be wrong.

It's quite shocking to see the extent to which they are in denial, and the extent to which their religion has warped them. That is, if they truly do believe what they say.

Only Doug Ford would see a 401 tunnel as a solution

Doug Ford must have been thinking that it's been way too long since he came up with something contentious, silly and terminally impractical. He did try recently, with his scheme to throw lots of money at corner shop keepers to stock Ford's favourite product, alcohol, but that was not one of his best. Then, there was his bright idea to ban the installation of new bikes lanes, save in exceptional circumstances. This latest one, though, is a doozy.

Yesterday, Ford announced that he wants to build a multi-lane tunnel the entire length of Highway 401's busiest stretch, from Mississauga/Brampton to Scarborough/Markham. At over 50 km in length, this would make it the longest tunnel in the world (over twice as long as the current record-holder in Norway), and almost certainly the most expensive. Ford specifically stipulated that it should be toll-free - he doesn't like to put any restrictions on our God-given right to drive.

In fact, Ford is not really sure how much it would cost, even approximately. Boston's "Big Dig", the only North American project even vaguely comparable, cost well over $20 billion (in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation), nearly 3 times the original estimate, and it took 25 years (plus nearly 10 years of planning) and was plagued with overruns, leaks and collapses. "That's not going to happen here. We're experts at tunnelling", Ford assured us. This from the man overseeing the (ongoing, and disastrous) Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail project...

So, Ford wants to tie up Toronto's construction and maintenance resources for more than a generation - during most of which time he himself will be comfortably retired, likely even dead - and saddle Ontario's tax-payers with an unprecedented cost that the government (and the tax-payers) clearly can't afford. Regardless, in his usual gung-ho cowabunga style, Ford blustered, "I'll tell you one thing, we're getting this tunnel built" (regardless of feasibility?).

Of course, right now we're only at the feasility study stage (or even the dream stage, you might say), and nobody, possibly excepting Ford, actually expects this thing to take off. Or at least, so they hope. 

If Ford had bothered to ask a traffic expert or two before opening his mouth, he would know that decades of traffic research has shown that widening highways or adding new lanes only encourages more driving and new low-density suburban housing, resulting in just as much congestion within a year or less - it may sound counter-intuitive, but it's called the "induced travel effect" and it's a well-known thing - and at great cost to the public purse. The Katy Freeway near Houston is a good example - it has been expanded and expanded to 26 lanes in some places, and is still congested.

The 401 is one of the world's busiest highways. It is 18 lanes wide at its widest, and it still gets gridlocked regularly. Everyone would admit there is a problem, and some serious solutions have been put forward, e.g. invest some substantial money in attractive public transit, impose road tolls, buy back the nearby 407 roll road, etc. No-one would suggest building a tunnel. No-one but Doug Ford, that is.

While it makes almost no sense in any practical way, the point of Ford's announcement (and the one about stopping new bike lanes) is not to make meaningful and sensible changes to the province's infrastructure - it is all about posturing for a possible early election, and galvanizing his base electorate: suburban drivers. Doug Ford doesn't care about the province's roads and finances; he just wants to be elected again.

Poilievre and Singh nearly come to blows in Parliament

There were some heated words exchanged during Question Period in Canada's Parliament yesterday. You might think that is not unusual, but in this case the words were between the two main opposition parties, and Question Period is quite specifically designated as a time for the opposition parties to put questions to the government of the day.

In the thick of it was - you might have guessed! - attack dog Pierre Poilievre, leader of the official opposition Conservative Party. This time, Poilievre went well beyond his brief, repeatedly needling NDP leader Jagmeet Singh - disregarding warnings from the Speaker of the House - for, as Poilievre sees it, going back on his word to cut loose from the NDP's de facto coalition arrangement with the Liberals.

In fact, Singh has always said that he was tearing up the semi-official arrangement, but that he reserved the right to vote whichever way he thought best on individual matters. Poilievre, however, desperately wants an election while his party is doing well in the polls, and is livid that the NDP (and the Bloc Quebecois, for whom Poilievre also had words) are not playing his game in supporting a vote of no-confidince in the government.

As we know, both Poilievre and Singh are combative individuals with some anger issues, and when Poilievre referred to the NDP leader as "sell-out Singh" and called him "a fake, a phony, and a fraud" - which amounts to pretty unparliamentary language in Canada - Singh was on his feet and challenging Poilievre. He may actually have been calling Poilievre out for a fight, although it's hard to know because the Speaker quickly switched off the microphones. Phrases like "I'm right here, bro!" and "Say it to my face!" and "Do it!" were apparently overheard.

Anyway, the episode gradually played itself out, with the Speaker acting as referee (or adult) while the boys yelled at each other. The Liberals were probably quite happy to be spectators rather than participants.

But Pierre Poilievre is getting increasingly out of hand with his name calling and his insults. The man needs to be taken down a peg or two. He is probably taking his cues from ex-President Donald Trump, whom he increasingly resembles, not least in his hubris. But Trump is not a role model that is appropriate to Canada's parliamentary democracy. 

I get it that Poilievre is an "angry young man" and passionate about his politics, but he need to temper his temper, and have some respect for the parliamentary model and for his political opponents.

A disturbing tale from a French village

As if one bizzarro story yesterday - exploding pagers in Lebanon! - were not enough, there was the sensational French rape trial.

A court listened to distressing details of how, over a period of ten years in the sleepy medieval village of Mazan in southwestern France, 71-year old Dominique Pelicot drugged his 72-year old wife of 50 years, Gisèle, and invited in up to 70 men to rape and abuse her, while he videotaped it all.

Pelicot, along with other 50 co-defendants in the case who were all accused of raping Mme Pelicot, freely admitted, "I am a rapist, like the others in this room", and that "I loved her well for 40 years, and badly for 10". 

Gisèle, meanwhile, has become something of a feminist icon and a symbol of resilience and courage for speaking out about her abusive husband. She is suffering from weight loss, hair loss and memory loss as a result of the drugs her husband has been feeding her, a husband of whom she says, "I trusted him completely". She was met with spontaneous applause as she exited the court room yesterday.

It is a lurid and disturbing story, and really makes you wonder what happens behind closed doors as you look at your apparently affable and civilized neighbours. It's hard to believe that the village of Mazan will ever quite be the same.

Hezbollah pager explosions just one more horrific event in a nasty war

In a scene straight out of Black Mirror or some speculative fiction novel, thousands of pagers across Lebanon simultaneously exploded yesterday, killing at least 9 people (including a young girl) and wounding over 2,700 others.

In the ongoing horror story that is the Middle East, this is one of the most dramatic and horrifying incidents yet. Israel has not yet owned up to the attack, but who else can we look to?

The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah switched to using 1970s-style pagers (aka "beepers") for communications because it was too easy for Israel to trace cellphone calls and users. However, according to the New York Times at least, explosive material was hidden in the Taiwan-made (or possibly Hungary-made and Israeli-owned) Gold Apollo pagers before they were imported into Lebanon. The material was implanted next to the battery with a switch that could be remotely triggered.

So, this mass terrorist attack was planned by Israel long ago, although the exact timing of the pager order is not yet clear. I have not seen anything suggesting that it constitutes a crime against humanity, but I can well believe that will follow. Everyone else is still in shock. It has certainly cemented Israel's status as a global pariah.

UPDATE

The next day, a second wave of explosions, this time targeting long-discontinued walkie-talkies, shook Beirut and other Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon, killing 20 and injuring 450. Many of the victims were attending funeral services for victims of Tuesday's pager explosions.

It's hard not to admire Israel's ingenuity with this "new phase" of their war against Arab countries in the Middle East. But it's also hard not to be sickened by it.

How did the carbon tax become such poisonous politics in Canada

How did the carbon tax become such poisonous politics in Canada? There was a time when it was quite the popular idea. Most Canadians apparently STILL want out governments to do something about climate change, but they don't seem to like the idea that it will cost them money.

The latest development on this front is that the NDP - once the strongest supporter of climate action, including a carbon tax - has decided that support for a Canadian climate tax is no longer politically palatable, and should be done away with. They still want to do SOMETHING to combat climate change, they're just not sure what yet. This is coming from the federal NDP (which seems to have completely lost its way under Jagmeet Singh), and the BC NDP under David Eby (likewise). (BC, under its then Liberal government, established Canada's first ever carbon tax back in 2008, and it has been quite successful ever since. Wab Kinew, Manitoba's new NDP premier has also made it clear he would like to see the carbon tax gone. 

(The Conservatives have never made any pretence about caring about climate change, so they are not relevant to this particular conversation.)

So, how did this turnaround happen?

Tony Keller in the Globe and Mail has a theory, and it seems as good as any. Essentially, it boils down to transparency and visibility. The carbon tax is relatively visible: you can SEE the price of gas increase as the tax increases. This should be a good thing, you would think. Indeed, that is the whole point of a carbon tax: people need to see the real cost of their oil and gas fixation, otherwise they will never change their behaviour. But it turns out that people don't like to actually see things costing them more, and this seems to apply even when they are receiving a (poorly publicized) rebate to offset those higher costs.

Interestingly, Quebec - which has the only cap-and-trade system in Canada, rather than a consumer carbon tax - is just about the only province where people are not complaining. Their prices are still higher as a result of their particular climate change solution (and they don't even receive a government rebate), but it's not so clear and obvious. Ignorance is bliss, I guess?

So, faced with the prospect of voter unrest, this new generation of politicians chooses pragmatism over principle, abandoning long-held beliefs in the forlorn hope of earning a few more votes. (But who is going to respect a party that bends and sways in whatever political breeze happens to be blowing?) To their credit, the Liberals are the only major party - sorry, Green Party! - that seems willing to stick to their principles, come what may, and look where that has left them!

So, rather than choosing a more fuel-efficient car as the price of carbon increases, it seems people are more likely to look to a different government instead, a less pro-carbon tax one that will save them a few bucks here and there. Or not: they don't seem to understand that, without a carbon tax, they will also have to forego their countervailing quarterly rebate.

And the Conservatives, and now the NDP, seem willing to humour them in their delusion. Neither party has yet offered a viable and effective alternative to putting a price on carbon, but that doesn't seem to worry them. They are way too busy fixating on power, and how to get it. They are so anxious to be seen to be pandering to their core constituency that they are willing to sell their soul in the process.

There is no pain-free, cost-free way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the carbon tax we have is the closest thing to that. And if Mr. Singh is concerned that "working people" (what ever he means by that) are bearing too much of the burden of it, he is wrong and should know better: low-income households are net beneficiaries of the carbon tax and its related rebate, and it is higher-income households that, because of their lifestyle, actually do bear a net cost.

Poilievre speaks in slogans and catchphrases

Increasingly, as the prospect of an early federal election looms ever larger, Pierre Polievre talks in slogans, soundbites, and reductive catchphrases. He manages to work them into pretty much every sentence he utters, often several in one sentence.

"Axe the tax", "spike the hike", "build the homes", "fix the budget", "stop the crime", "bring it home", "Canada is broken", "carbon tax election",  "common sense Conservatives". On and on it goes. He never says "election" without saying "carbon tax election". He never says "Conservatives" without qualifying it as "common sense Conservatives". He never says ANYTHING without adding "axe the tax", usually accompanied by " build the homes, fix the budget, and stop the crime", like some kind of crazy nursery rhyme. Dum-de-dum-de-dum...

Three-word phrases are his bread and butter. This is politics for five-year olds. But this is how he has somehow managed to hoodwink a goodly proportion of the Canadian electorate, and to achieve a twenty-point lead in the polls. 

Essentially, it's Marketing 101: keep it simple and repeat it often. But it's also Politics for Dummies. Much like Donald Trump, Poilievre seems to be aiming at the lowest common denominator: the less-educated, less-discerning, resentful underclass.

But it's very much marketing, not politics. He has managed to get to this position without having to really explain his own policies - if indeed he has any - in any detail. It's one thing to bluster and rage and oppose, and entirely another to have coherent and practical replacement policies. Ask any Democrat in America; they have seen the effects of simplistic populism at first hand.

Unfortunately, simplistic populism works pretty well, particularly on the right of the political spectrum.

Ontario's ban on solar farms on agricultural land is typically short-sighted

Once again, Doug Ford is following Danielle Smith's lead - he would dearly like to be seen as just as stridently right wing and populist as the Alberta Premier. This time, he is looking to ban ground-mounted solar panels on prime agricultural farmland in Ontario, particularly in specialty crop areas, and other energy projects being considered on such land will require an input assessment and municipal permission (but wasn't that always the case?)

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture professes itself all in favour of the move, which they see as a no-brainer and long overdue. The solar industry, on the other hand, obviously opposes it, warning that billions in potential investment could go elsewhere if the ban goes ahead, like with the similar announcement back in 2009, and with Alberta's more recent embargo on renewable projects.

At first glance, this seems like a prime example of a "global environmentalist vs. local environmentalist" dichotomy - local environmentalists prioritize land protection and stewardship, looking to protect biodiversity and local habitats (although intensively-farmed agricultural land is really not that useful for either of those things), while global environmentalists are more concerned with greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that all other issues pale into insignificance in comparison.

But, as usual, the issue is really not as black-and-white as it might appear, and a compromise position is readily available. The idea of agrivoltaics has been around for years. Solar arrays and crops can actually be mutually beneficial. For example, shade from solar panels can lead to more efficient water usage and protect crops and animals from the sun during the heat of the day. It maximizes the productivity of the land and creates a whole new income stream for hard-pressed farmers.

The Ford government continues to lurch from one extreme to another, with no reasoned strategy in sight. The first thing they did on being elected was to summarily cancel 750 renewable projects, incurring millions of dollars in costs and setting Ontario's climate change ambitions back years. In between, they have seemed to lend their support to electric vehicles and battery technology. Now, we've come full circle and renewable energy is back in the "bad" column. 

Elon Musk's response to Taylor Swift says it all

Kamala Harris finally got her all-important endorsement from Taylor Swift. I know it's a sad reflection of modern society, but Ms. Swift - like it or not, and whether she likes it or not - has an iron-clad grip over the beliefs and opinions of millions of Swifties. Arguably, it is the next thing to a cult, one of the largest and most influential in recent history. But, what she says makes a difference.

What she actually said was: "I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I'm voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos." 

A clear, reasoned assessment if ever I saw one. And, in a nod to Trump's running mate, JD Vance, she signed off as "Childless Cat Lady", complete with a photo of her and her cat.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has the celebrity backing of one, Elon Musk. Musk's response to Taylor Swift's endorsement is telling: "Fine Taylor ... you win ... I will give you a child and guard your cats with my life". Like so many of Musk's attempts at humour, it falls flat, but with a slightly disturbing edge to it.

Setting aside his autism, and the difficulty some autistic people have with reading the room and judging their tone, Musk's flippant response is emblematic of the glaring difference between the Republican and Democratic camps in today's politics. "Civil, reasoned and compassionate vs. boorish, irrational and rapacious" may be one way to characterize it.

UPDATE

Donald Trump himself managed a response on a similar level of gravitas and sobriety: "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT". Um, OK, thanks for that considered comment, Donny. How mature was that?!

UPDATE UPDATE

Nothing daunted, Musk followed up with another equally off-colour "joke" after a possible second assassination attempt on Trump (although it turns out the gunman did not fire any shots and never actually had a line of sight on Trump): "And no-one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala".

After a tsunami of complaints, Musk deleted the post. But, really, the guy is impossible.

Delay on sentencing Trump is political however you slice it

A New York judge has just ruled that ex-President Trump will not be sentenced until just after the November US election in the hush money case. Way back in May, Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, but the sentencing was delayed. 

Sentencing was originally scheduled for September 18th, but the worthy justice, in his his wisdom, decided it should be delayed.

Judge Juan Merchan argued that he made this decision to avoid any appearance of affecting the outcome of the presidential race. But in doing so, he has ... affected the outcome of the presidential race.

Granted, the judge was between a rock and a hard place, and anything he did would attract condemnation from one side or the other. Was this the right decision? Who can say? Even if Trump were to campaign from behind bars, his rabid supporters would still vote for him; in fact, it may even have given his campaign a boost.

However much Judge Merchan might try to justify it, it ends up being a political decision. In his ruling, the judge asserted that "the Court is a fair, inpartial and apolitical institution" (ha! try telling the Supreme Court that!) But at this point in the election run-up, EVERYTHING is political.

Singh pulls out of supply-and-confidence agreement and no-one understands why

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has ended the supply-and-confidence power-sharing agreement with the Liberals a year early, paving the way for an early federal election in Canada, an election that seems to destined to go in a disastrous landslide to Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives. More to the point, an election that will see the NDP do as badly, if not worse than in the last one, at least according to the polls. 

The supply-and-confidence agreement, has allowed the NDP to steer Liberal policy distinctly leftward over the past two or three years. It has propped up Justin Trudeau's sagging government, but it has also given the NDP more influence over national policy than it has ever had, and allowed it to pass some landmark policies, an opportunity it would never otherwise - as the perennial third-place party - have had.

But now, just days after Poilievre publicly called on "Sellout Singh" to abandon the agreement early and allow for a "carbon tax election", as he insists on calling it, Singh has done just that, for reasons that no-one really seems to understand. Maybe Poilievre's adoption of Trump-style name-calling is having an effect.

Saying that "the Liberals have let people down" and that they "will always cave to corporate greed", he has opened the door for Poilievre, whose caving to corporate greed knows no bounds. Singh has also abandoned any hopes of pushing through any other pieces of legislation the NDP might have hoped for in the remaining months of the agreement, which was originally expected to continue until June 2025. 

Singh's announcement suggested that he thought the NDP stood a better chance of defeating the Conservatives in an election than the Liberals - "they cannot stop the Conservatives, but we can" - which is wishful thinking of epic proportions given recent polls showing the Conservatives at 41%, the L8berals at 27%, and the NDP at just 14%.

Now, every parliamentary issue becomes a confidence vote - Poilievre is desperate for an election while he is polling well. It's still possible that the NDP could prop up the Liberals in such a vote, supply-and-confidence or no supply-and-confidence, as could the Bloc Québécois. But it has put everything on much shakier ground than before. And for what?

It's a head-scratcher on the level of the BC Liberals recent bewildering decision to throw their lot in with the BC Conservatives, with whom they seem to have little or nothing in common. It has also led to a huge backlash within the NDP party, with increasing calls for Singh's resignation, and jibes that he has sold his soul to Poilievre and offered him the country on a silver platter.

It's certainly a week for inexplicable surprise political decisions.

The fraught issue of regulation of e-bikes

I've often wondered what are the actual rules around e-bikes. They are ubiquitous in Toronto these days and, given that many of them use roads, bike lanes and sidewalks almost interchangeably, it's hard to know what they are supposed to be doing. Suffice to say, I'm pretty sure they are not following what rules do exist.

A pretty comprehensive article in the Globe tries to tackle the subject and, yes, it's complicated. While provinces and municipalities are keen to encourage e-bikes as a way of addressing traffic problems and climate change, it's hard to do that while also ensuring the safety of pedestrians, regular cyclists, e-bikers and even car-drivers.

There are so many different types of e-bikes available these days that the line between bike, e-bike and motorbike is pretty blurry. And the rules governing them are a patchwork of provincial and municipal laws. And, to make things worse, there is next to no enforcement of the rules anyway.

One distinction is between e-bikes on which the motor plays merely a supporting role and most of the power is provided by pedalling (sometimes referred to as "pedelecs"), and ones where pedalling is optional or entirely unnecessary. Some e-bikes may have pedals that are completely inoperable and just for show, designed to ensure they are classed as bikes and not motorbikes (which have much more onerous regulations and licensing requirements, as well as insurance implications). Some e-bikes may have speed limiters, where the motor cuts out when a certain speed is reached, but most don't.

The laws and bylaws governing e-bikes try to take all this heterogeneity into account, but that ends up making things very complicated. For example, in Toronto, e-bikes that are limited to 32 km/h capability are allowed in paint-only bike lanes (i.e. those that are not physically separated from the road by a curbstones or other barrier) but prohibited in separated ones, the (perfectly reasonable) theory being that passing other cyclists is easier and safer on the paint-only lanes. But do you think anyone is even aware of these arcane bylaws?

Also, e-bikes that require some muscular power (i.e pedalling) are allowed on all bikeways in Toronto, providing they weigh less than 40 kg. Again, you can see the logic here - especially given that some actually weigh in at over 100 kg - but it is completely unenforceable. 

And all e-bikes are technically banned from riding on sidewalks, but is anyone really going to ticket a food courier riding on the sidewalk of a fast, dangerous arterial road which has no bike lane, when that they are merely prioritizing their own safety? Presupposing that anyone is even trying to police them.

British Columbia's rules are even more complex. Its Motor Vehicle Act defines e-bikes according to their power rating, 200 or 250 watts depending on the rider's age, and a speed capacity of less than 32 km/h. If an e-bike exceeds these parameters, then they are technically subject to motor vehicle licensing and other rules like a full-blown motor cycle. How is that going to be enforced?

Electric kick scooters (like a kid's scooter but with a motor, sometimes referred to as "micromobility") are a whole other issue, and a whole other risk factor for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. These require no physical exertion (apart from balance), but they are nimble, portable .... and fast. Some are rated at 40 km/h or more - I was talking to a guy recently who maintained his scooter did 80km/h! -  although Ontario's laws limit them to 24 km/h on roads. Well, that's not going to happen!

You can't fault provinces and municipalities for trying to regulate e-bikes and micromobility. They are increasingly popular, and are an increasing hazard, and accidents and complaints about them are proliferating. And, of course, they are a good match with jurisdictions' climate change goals and traffic management issues. But to call it the Wild West is putting it mildly.

The author of the article suggests a way forward that tries to balance safety and safety conduct with the encouragement of further growth in e-bikes. First, food delivery couriers need to be specifically regulated (with the onus on the app/company): riders need to be properly trained, bikes should be monitored to ensure they are in good working order and meet all applicable rules, safe charging stations and secure overnight parking facilities should be mandated, etc.

Second, provinces should provide funded cycling education in schools (as already happens in BC) as well as for any adults who want it. Motorists should also have their driver education extended to include dealing with bikes and e-bikes.

Third, governments should standardize their e-bike definitions, and implement a system that allows for easy identification of e-bikes and whether or not they should be covered by licensing laws.

And cities should re-double their efforts to build cycling infrastructure. Toronto, for example, has bike lanes on only 4% of its roads, lagging well behind leaders like Vancouver and Montreal.

All sensible suggestions. But since when did sensible suggestions becomes the basis for government policy?