Ontario moves to a more circular economy (but how does it work?)

As of January 1st this year, the collection of recycling in Ontario (the Blue Box Program) devolves from municipalities - Toronto in my case - to a not-for-profit organization called Circular Materials. In theory, this is a step towards a more circular, less wasteful, economy, but I am reserving judgement until I see how it works in practice.

The idea, so we are told, is not so much to outsource and privatize yet more city services, but to move to a model where the producers of all the packaging that gets recycled are the ones that pay for the recycling, a concept known as "extended producer responsibility" or EPR. Environmentalists are all in favour of EPR as it represents an extension of the "polluter.pays" principle. And it does make a lot of sense to me too, in principle at least. 

The change is supposed to save Ontario's municipalities about $200 million a year (about $10 million in the case of Toronto). Historically, under the municipality-operated recycling program, producers only funded about half of the costs, with the municipalities (i.e. taxpayers) paying the other half. Now, the organizations that produce the products and packaging will be responsible for operating and finding the entire program.

However, nothing I have read about it explains just how these cost are charged to the producing companies. It sounds like it would be a logistical nightmare. Does Circular Msterials somehow keep track of every paper, plastic and metal item that runs though its system and note down which producer was responsible for it? Surely not. But how else would it work?

Of course, the producers will no doubt recoup these additional costs through higher consumer prices - they're not charities after all - but the "producer pays" principle has been established, and in theory it is now in their interests to reduce their packaging in order to reduce costs. Except, in practice, as noted, they will probably just pass on the costs to us consumers anyway. But maybe consumers will become more picky about expensive over-packaged products, who knows?

Developing Venezuela won't be as simple as Trump thinks

Part of Donald Trump's back-of-an-envelope "plan" for Venezuela, such as it is, is that the big American oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips should invest billions in upgrading the country's oil facilities and related infrastructure, to the tune of $100 billion, he says.

Unfortunately, he forgot to ask those companies if that was OK, and now they are showing themselves extremely leery of any such investment. Exxon CEO Darren Woods put it quite succinctly: "It's uninvestable."

Trump has tried to reassure them, insisting: "You have total safety. You're dealing with us directly and not deal with Venezuela at all. We don't want you to deal with Venezuela." But canny operators like Woods realize that it's not as simple as that, and after having had assets seized there twice already, they are understandbly reticent to do there again. They are probably also wondering whether they can trust Trump's America and more than they could Chávez and Maduro's Venezuela.

It seems quite likely that Trump will find himself bogged down for years or decades in the beleaguered South American country. And, frankly, I hope he does. I just feel sorry for the Venezuelan (and at least half of the American) people.

Russia's hypersonic missile strike, and what it means for the West

Russia has delivered another hypersonic Oreshnik missile strike on Lviv, Ukraine, which most Western countries are are calling out as an unacceptable escalation to the war and cause for major concern in Europe.

I say "most Western countries" because notably absent from the condemnations was the USA, which contented itself with a totally unrelated and, in the circumstances, almost laughable press release by the US Ambassador to NATO, hailing the '"tremendous progress toward a durable, enforceable peace" in Ukraine, adding that "President Trump wants peace in Ukraine". Well, how's that going guys? Talk about tone deaf. 

While the rest of Europe was busy condemning Russia's move and speculating on what it might means for NATO and the EU, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not even mention the Oreshnik strike when speaking to Mark Rutte.(Secretary-General of NATO), preferring to discuss Arctic security. Was he even aware of it? And there was nothing at all from the normally garrulous President Trump.

This is only the second time that Russia has employed its hypersonic missiles. The first was back in November 2024, when Russia's first ever use of the missisle merely targeted an apparently disused factory in Dnipro, and even that event attracted a huge outcry. This one targeted the city of Lviv, just an hour's drive from the Ukrainian border with Poland, and was part of a wider coordinated attack on Kyiv involving over 270 missiles and drones.

So, why is the use of the Oreshnik considered such an escalation? It's partly that Russia's hypersonic (faster than the speed of sound) missiles were developed during the Cold War to deliver a nuclear payload, even though this particular one carried conventional non-nuclear armaments. It's partly that it travels so fast that it is very hard to shoot down and protect against. It's partly that it is very expensive, and so for Russia to be using it they must want to send a very important message. It's partly that it is considered a medium range (600-1,000 miles), or even intermediate range (upto, or even in excess of, 3,000 miles), ballistic missile, with all the connotations for NATO and Europe that brings with it.

And it's partly that it's just a very nasty piece of work. It can rain down up to six independently-targetable "re-entry vehicles", each of which may contain four to six separate ordnances, each of which in turn can be pointed at separate targets. It travels at 8,000 mph (13,000 kph), and soars up above the atmosphere before turning down sharply towards its intended target, making it almost unstoppable by the air defence systems available to Ukraine. It's a fearsome weapon and its potential destructive power is immense, especially given the difficulty of defence against it.

And why now? Well, no-one really understands the mind of Vladimir Putin, any more than they do that of Donald Trump. Moscow's official line is that it is in response to Ukraine's targeting of Putin's residence late last year, even though the CIA has assessed that it was not actually targeting the residence at all. In reality, it is probably just Russia sabre-rattling at a time when one of its allies, Venezuela, is under attack by American forces, and a Russian-flagged tanker carrying Venezuelan oil was intercepted by the Americans in the Atlantic. 

This is especially likely given that this Oreshnik launch, like the one in 2024, carried only inert or "dummy" warheads according to Ukrainian officials. So, this was much more a warning of what Russia could do, to Ukraine and to others, rather than a strategic strike on infrastructure intended to do real damage.

Be that as it may, it seems like the Cold War may be back with a vengeance. And it's already warming up.

Some Republicans dare to cross Trump

It takes a fair amount of self-confidence and gumption for Republicans to vote against Donald Trump these days. So, when five GOP Senators voted with the Democrats yesterday, it was a notable and newsworthy event.

In a motion aimed at barring Trump from further military action in Venezuela without Congressional approval, the Senate (which has a 53-47 Republican majority, even including independents with the opposition) voted 52-47 in favour. Joining all the Democrats were Republican moderates Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, libertarian Rand Paul of Kentucky, populist Josh Hawley of Missouri, and centrist Todd Young of Indiana. Predictably, Trump lashed out, saying that they "should never be elected to office again" (these are member of his own party, the one that he is supposed to be leading).

Republicans asserted themselves on another vote too, also yesterday. The House passed legislation, by a substantial 230-196 margin, to extend expired health care subsidies for those who currently get coverage through the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). No less than 17 Republican members voted with the Democrats, in spite of the best efforts of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson over a period of months, and Trump's publicly-expressed opposition to the extension.

The chances of the war powers legislation actually becoming law is slim to none, well, none actually. First, it has to pass in the House of Representatives, where the Republicans have a majority of 218-213, with 4 seats currently vacant (why?). And, while that is maybe conceivable in the current environment, Trump can, and will, still veto it, which would require a two-thirds majority to break, which is a stretch.

As for the health care bill, it must go the other way, to the Senate, where a super-majority of 60 is required (again, why?), which is also a steep path although, these days, stranger things have happened.

Both the House vote on the war powers motion and the Senate vote on health care subsidies will be interesting to see nevertheless. It will give a glimpse into just how pissed off Republicans are at the way Trump and his group of willing lackeys have hijacked the party, and the extent of Trump's power over Congress. Could this be the start of the turn of the tide? We are used to seeing the Republicans vote as a unit behind Trump, mainly because they are shit-scared of crossing him. Are some of the more disaffected members starting to think "thus far and no further".

US pulls out of dozens of international agencies

This is rapidly turning into an American blog, it seems, but there is just so much to comment on in America these days. Every day there is some new outrage, often two or three. It's exhausting enough for a Canadian; imagine what it's like for an American. I don't comment here on even a small fraction of them and it's already overwhelming.

Yesterday, the USA announced it is withdrawing from a whole slew of international organizations, agencies, commissions and advisory panels, on the grounds that Mr. Trump doesn't think he gets enough out of them, or he objects to their focus on "woke" subjects like diversity, climate change and poverty. Trump has no interest in how the rest of the world is faring; he barely has any interest in how his own people are doing. He certainly does not want to spend any money on anything that doesn't have a positive return on investment for the United States of America

The USA has already suspended support for many international and United Nations (UN) agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNWRA), the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the Paris Climate Accords (aka the Paris Agreement on Climate Change).

To that list, it is now adding another 66 organizations, about half of them affiliated with the United Nations: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Carbon Free Energy Compact, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the United Nations University, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation, the Pan-American Institute for Geography and History, the International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies, and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group, among others. Basically, anything with the word "international" or "cooperation" in it. In US government terms, it is a "Withdrawal from Wasteful, Ineffective or Harmful International Organizations", and they say they need no other justification to pull out than that the groups "no longer serve American interests".

And, of course, they are taking their money with them. As the richest country on earth, they have long been the largest contributors and financial mainstays of these organization, and the US's withdrawal may well mean that many of these august and well-meaning bodies may have to close down completely. The UN is currently looking to the courts to enforce what Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls the US's "legal obligation" to keep funding the groups. Good luck with that.

The Trump administration can't decide  whether it wants to curl up in its little shell and pursue isolationist policies, or to go full interventionist, so it has decided to do both. Nobody has a clue what they are doing any more, or why, or what they will do next.

Citing the Monroe Doctrine does not make Trump's Venezuela stunt right or legal

The Americans - well, let's be clearer: SOME Americans - are fond of invoking the Monroe Doctrine as a kind of all-encompassing justification for some of the most egregious foreign policy initiatives of the 20th and 21st centuries, including, most recently Trump's invasion of Venezuela and his threats to annex Greenland.

The problem is that the 1823 Monroe Doctrine (and the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary that followed it) was never very defensible, and Trump's willful misinterpretation of it (the Trump Corollary" or "Donroe Doctrine" as he calls it) moves it even further from a reasonable justification or vindication for problematic foreign policy. It was never a binding law, a legal principle to be followed, or a foundational tenet of US foreign policy; it was only ever a notional statement of intent, as applied to a very specific situation. In the modern world, it is indisputably an anachronism.

The Monroe Doctrine was formulated by the early American President James Monroe to promote regional stability at a time when many European colonies in the Caribbean and South America were declaring their independence. It was intended to prevent European powers from re-colonizing parts of the Americas, by presenting the United States as a kind of police force for countries in (very broadly speaking) their "backyard". It effectively unilaterally asserted the whole of the Western Hemisphere as America's rightful "sphere of influence". At the time, many newly-independent Latin-American nations welcomed Munroe's declaration as affirming their own freedoms, even though Munroe himself saw it as merely stamping out any threats to US "peace and safety", however improbable those were.

The Roosevelt Corollary expanded this vision of the US as an "international police force", and would serve as a pretext for any number of inexcusable American interventions, occupations and "gunboat diplomacy". 

The Trump Corollary, that prioritizes American-led efforts to combat mass migration, drug-trafficking, and the "hostile" ownership of key assets, moves even further from the original Monroe Doctrine, which itself was largely indefensible, effectively serving as an excuse or justification for American imperialism and good old-fashioned bullying. 

Mr. Trump essentially considers the whole of the Western Hemisphere to be de facto under American control. No amount of referencing of historical documents can possibly make that true or right.

The complex dance of Middle Eastern politics just got even more complicated

With Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the media room, it's easy to forget that there are other things going on around the world, some of them almost as bad as what Trump is bringing.

For instance, did you know that Saudi Arabia is currently bombing the United Arab Emirates. Sounds improbable, right? Saudi and UAE are anti-Iran allies, no? It's not just that UAE and Saudi Arabia are majority Sunni Muslim countries, while Iran is largely Shia. But both countries are strongly opposed to Iran's regional influence, and its support for insurgent groups like the Houthis in Yemen.

So, why would the Saudi Royal Air force be dropping bombs on UAE troops in the Yemeni port city of Mukalla. Well, it turns out that UAE is also supporting, financially and militarily, the Southern Transitional Council (STC), the secessionist group that has effectively carved out a statelet in South Yemen, right on Saudi Arabia's southern border. 

The Saudis have been fighting against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen since 2015 in a kind of Sunni-Shia proxy war. The STC's call for an independent Yemeni state has complicated an already difficult situation

But when Saudi Arabia recently found out that UAE was sending armoured vehicles and heavy weaponry to the STC, it decided to intervene in dramatic fashion. Rightly or wrongly, the Saudi kingdom views the presence of a separatist entity on its southern border as an existential threat. 

The Saudi attack was clearly strong enough to force UAE forces to quit Mukalla completely, and its personnel were seen in a rather chaotic retreat out of the area. The Riyadh-backed National Shield Forces (Daraa al-Watan) has moved into the vacuum created. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is also somewhere in the mix, looking to capitalize on any confusion and dissent. Man, Middle Eastern politics is complicated!

Surprisingly, the Trump administration has had nothing to say about all this. It's not clear if they are even aware of it. Israel is of course worried that the once monumental Arabic anti-Iran front now appears fractured and fighting among themselves. The complex dance that is the Middle East has just made another pirouette.

Trump seems to be serious about Greenland

After Venezuela, what next? There seems no end to Trump's megalomaniac imperialist tendencies, and his administration seems completely unwilling or unable to reign him in.

So: Colombia? Cuba? Greenland? Iran? Mexico? Canada? Trump talked about all of these countries and "failed states" in an unhinged presser after the Venezuela coup.

Perhaps the most likely next target is Greenland, and this has set alarm bells ringing like no other. Trump has repeatedly reiterated his "need" for Greenland: "We do need Greenland, absolutely". A White House statement made the rampant US position very clear: "The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal and, of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander-In-Chief's disposal". Of course.

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has been since 1814. It is therefore part of the European Union and part of NATO. And there's the rub. A major member of the NATO alliance claiming the sovereign territory of another member is uncharted territory, and may well spell the beginning of the end of the alliance. As Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen put it, "If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops". Trump appears not to care about that prospect, but the rest of the world certainly does. And the likes of Russia and China definitely care. The alliance seems all but paralyzed at the moment, uncertain how seriously to take Trump's threats.

The answer is "very seriously". In a late night Truth Social post, Trump has declared that Greenland is now an American "protectorate", and who is to say him nay? If he says it, is it true? No-one was ever quite sure if Trump planned to acquire Greenland, which he insists he "needs" for national security reasons, by force, coercion or just by buying off the population with bribes. But maybe he doesn't need to resort to any of those tactics.

Trump has repeatedly said that the US needs Greenland "for defense", and that it is "covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place". And the USA does have a military base there, focussing on missile detection and space surveillance. But many analysts think that Trump's obsessiveness about Greenland is more to do with its natural resources, particularly rare earth minerals.

A complicating factor is that a majority of Greenlanders do in fact support seceding from Denmark. But an even greater majority rejects the idea of becoming part of the US. 

Militarily, neither Denmark nor any other NATO would be able to resist the USA. As one European official out it: "We're won't be able to defend Greenland. Are you kidding?" But, as the German Foreign Minister pointed out recently, technically Greenland falls under Article 5 of the NATO agreement, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and the other members are obliged to respond. So, NATO would be at war with the USA?

Politically and diplomatically, many countries are making their positions clear. Just yesterday, the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark came together to issue a joint statement saying, "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations". Even Canada's notoriously circumspect Prime Minister Mark Carney has come out publicly to say that "the future of Greenland is a decision for Greenland and Denmark exclusively", and moved to establish a new Canadian consulate on the island.

All of this is if course true, but what is the practical import of such declarations? None of the tub-thumping coming from other supportive members is realistically going to have any impact at all on a man who only hears what he wants to hear, and who is oblivious to any normal logical, or even legal, arguments. 

The indications of Trump's intentions have been there all along. At first, it seemed like a throwaway line, poor-taste joke of the kind he excels in, kind of like calling Canada the 51st state. But sometimes those jokes become real threats. Next he despatched Trump Jr. to do a recce of the place, needless of the bad optics. Then he installed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as his "special envoy" to Greenland (Landry calls it a "volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US"). And now Stephen Miller's annoying wife is posting pictures of Greenland swathed in the Stars and Stripes on X. The writing seems to be on the wall of a thousand Facebook accounts.

If Trump play his trump card by tying US possession of Greenland to American security guarantees for Ukraine, and even interrupting intelligence sharing and weapons sales to the Ukraine cause, as some suggest he is likely to do in the next few days, then NATO'S goose is all but cooked. What a mess!