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 cropsnir 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. So, what she says makes a difference.

What she 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 second (possible but uncofirmed) assassination attempt 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?