The case for replacing diesel in heavy-duty trucking

As diesel prices reach record levels, and the idiot-in-chief in the White House threatens to ban American diesel exports to the international market, it's never been clearer just how much we still rely on diesel for the transportation of goods. Almost completely, in fact - 97%.of the largest Class B tractor trailers run on diesel, although the figure for commercial trucks as a whole is about 76%.

So, what's the deal? We see lots of electric cars on the roads these days, but when was the last time you saw an electric truck? Why has the take-up of alternative-fuel trucks been so poor?

The main types of alternative fuels available for heavy-duty transportation are:

• Renewable diesel - made from fats and oils, which can be used directly in current trucks with no engine modification. It can reduce carbon intensity by as much as 68% compared to traditional diesel, but it remains relatively expensive. Incentives like California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard are starting to change that and adoption is increasing rapidly in such jurisductions.
• Natural gas (methane) - compressed natural gas offers a more stable price compared to diesel, but it is still a fossil fuel, albeit a bit cleaner than diesel. Renewable natural gas is sourced from landfills, animal waste and other organic matter, and is a net zero, or even carbon-negative, fuel, but it remains relatively expensive. They both offer diesel-like performance and good range, but require specialized engines (renewable natural gas fuel is compatible with engines designed for compressed natural gas). Natural gas is the most widely-used alternative fuel today, and there is already a reasonable network of filling stations, although it needs to be expanded if take-up is to improve.
• Electric batteries - offer zero tailpipe emissions and lower energy costs compared to diesel, but charging infrastructure is still lacking, and range, battery weight and initial purchase cost are also limitations (although all of these factors are in the process of improving). The sustainability impact also depends on the emissions profile of the electricity being used to charge them.
• Biodiesel - made from animal fats and vegetable oils, biodiesel is often blended with conventional diesel, with which it is completely compatible. It's performance in cold weather poses a challenge (it turns to gel and can harm engines), so most manufacturers do not support blends above 20%, although new technical advancements are overcoming even that drawback. Biodiesel can reduce carbon intensity by 73% compared to conventional diesel.

The main reason for diesel's continuing dominance in heavy-duty haulage is inertia, but its high energy density, strong pulling power, and the durability and reliable ignition of its engines make changes of any kind difficult. Furthermore, we are currently in a period of retrenchment, mainly thanks to Donald Trump and his ilk, and environmental concerns are not top of mind right now.

But, in this era of spiking diesel prices, the cost-benefit calculations for alternative fuels are starting to change, particularly for renewable natural gas and renewable diesel (the cost of electric trucks still makes them prohibitively expensive). By some analysis, electric trucks are expected to become economically competitive with diesel in the early 2030s. Donald Trump may have inadvertently given alternative fuels a shot in the arm.

Extending gas tax relief is a cynical exercise in populism

The Carney government, which for the longest time liked to call itself "Canada's new government" in order to distance it from the old Trudeau-led Liberal government, continues to show just how distant it is from Trudeau-era philosophies, particularly where the environment is concerned.

Mr. Carney's latest transgression is to extend the tax cut on gasoline, aviation fuel and diesel that it brought in in April of this year, and which was supposed to die an ignominious death this week. Now we are stuck with it until the end of March 2027 at least.

It's a conservative-inspired populist sop, advertised as a cost-of-living/affordability measure designed to help poorer people cope with the increased costs caused by Trump's war in Iraq.

But it takes a good chunk of government money to finance this kind of feel-good measure.. Esimates are that the tax cut will cost the government (and therefore the country) about $5.3 billion. That's more than the entire annual budget of the Correctional Services of Canada, more than the Department of Agriculture's annual budget, and the Department of Natural Resources'. It's more than what Ottawa plans to invest in its critical minerals strategy, slightly less than is budgeted for "trade diversification and infrastructure strategies" over five years, and a bit less than its investment in defence industrial strategy over five years.

You get the idea: it's a lot of money. And this is not some kind of tax reform measure, funded by tax increases or spending cuts elesewhere. This is just out-of-pocket spending that the country can ill afford. It goes straight on to our deficit and our national debt. It is lowering the cost of filling up your gas-guzzler SUV by borrowing and topping up the national debt. 

It works like a carbon tax in reverse: the more you drive, the more you save. If you can't afford a car and use public transit, or if you are environmentally responsible and drive an electric car (like me), you get no benefit at all, but pay for the debt servicing costs anyway out of your taxes.

This is no less cynical than the "temporary" gas tax cut Ontario Premier Doug Ford instituted back in 2022, which of course is now permanent. It is a similarly cynical populist move, just on a bigger scale.

There was a time when Mark Carney was a committed environmentalist, particularly active on climate change issues, but those days are long gone. This move will enable an increase in fossil fuel use, and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Carney knows that, and went ahead anyway, because he likes the power and wants to stay as Prime Minister. Of course, he would say, like Doug Ford, that he is saving the man in the street money, but it will certainly not trickle down to the poorest of the poor. 

And anyway, at what cost to the environment does it come. It's interesting that it was announced at the same time as the government issued (rather secretively) its latest Changing Climate Report, which concludes that Canadians are feeling the effects of climate change - from floods, wildfires and heatwaves to vanishing glaciers and melting permafrost - much more, and much more seriously, than projected just a decade ago, and that those trends are likely to be much more pronounced in the future. Since 1970, it notes, Canada has warmed nearly twice every as fast as the global average, and the Canadian Arctic three times as fast.

The report makes grim reading. And the Prime Minister's response? Let's just make it worse.

You might want to boycott Chevron

Most major oil companies are unwilling to touch Venezuelen oil with a proverbial bargepole. Not so Chevron.

America's second largest oil company has been in Venezuela since 1923, navigating or conveniently ignoring all of the many varieties of bad stuff that have happened there over the decades. Now, in response to Donald Trump's call for private development of the mess that is Venezuela's oil industry, Chevron is the only US oil company to step forward, not back.

The other companies, preferring not to be associated with Venezuela, are eschewing the country for sound financial reasons: most analysts think it will take many years of serious investment before Venezuelan oil will be profitable for them. Plus, the US government is insisting on taking a 20% cut (finders fee?)

But you have to think too that they are all too conscious of the reputational risk involved. After all, the US's involvement arose through an invasion. Trump would have us call it a "deal", because everything is a deal to him. But the reality is, America invaded Venezuela, kidnapped its elected leader (who is even now languishing in an American jail), and intimated and browbeat the interim government into granting the US de facto control over its huge oil reserves.

This, then, is blood money, spoils of war. Most sensible companies would want to distance themselves from that. But Chevron? They're all in. Now, you might want to boycott Chevron-owned gas stations: Chevron, Texaco, Caltex. I don't know whether that is already an ongoing campaign, but if it isn't, it should be. Me, I have an electric car, otherwise I would be there too.

UPDATE

Turns out, there are various other reasons to boycott Chevron notwithstanding its Venezuelan connections: its profiteering from the ongoing genocide in Palestine; its price-gouging activities; its dumping of toxic waste in developing countries; and of course its egregious carbon footprint and greenwashing strategies.

Why air conditioning might not be the best solution to hot weather

We do have air conditioning in our Toronto lakefront house (well, it's a heat pump - same idea, just cheaper and more efficient). But cool breezes off the lake and a certain attitude conspire against us using it very often.

American family and friends despair of us, but it's always seemed counter-intuitive to me to respond to climate change-induced exteme heat events by firing up a power-hogging electrical device which will only make climate change worse. It's also horribly expensive, as electricity rates creep up. 

But we do use it a few times a year, mainly on very hot nights where sleep would otherwise be impossible. During the day, even when it's hot, we tend not to use it - hot is just how it is in the summer. You can maybe see why visiting American family members shake their heads.

Turns out, though, I'm probably right. Certainly about the climate change piece, but also the half-formed idea I have always had that air conditioning is just not particularly healthy, and maybe even dangerous.

It's a fact that extreme heat events kill more people in the affluent West than in the wilds of Africa, where the heat is typically so much more intense and air conditioning is all but unheard of. Over millennia, Africans have adapted to the heat, physiologically and in their habits and conditions: houses maximize air flow, the workday is arranged around the hottest parts of the day, clothing is loose and cool, hydration is a regular feature of life.

But also, there's evidence that chronic use of air conditioning can reduce such resilience. Although air conditioning in offices can improve labour productivity, fans and proper air circulation can achieve the same benefits, at least up to around 30°C. In residential homes, though, AC can prove downright dangerous. In increasingly common "compound climate events" - where a heat wave induces a power failure, for example - the rapid change in temperature can result in more heat stress than the high temperatures alone. As one recent American study puts it, "high AC prevalence may have the unintended effect of amplifying heat vulnerability during grid failure events". You only have to walk out of an over-air-conditioned store into the hot street to understand the logic of that.

Now, I'm not saying that air conditioning should be banned. Nearly a third of the deaths during heat waves occur among the elderly over 80 years of age, and more Europeans than North Americans tend to die from heat exposure (air conditioning is much more prevalent in North America). It's essential that seniors homes nursing homes and hospitals are air-conditioned, and even residential apartment blocks where a high proportion of senior citizens live. 

I just think we overuse it. We don't need frigid conditions in our houses and stores during the few months of the year when the weather is actually nice and warm; that is just perversity. Maybe a fan works well most of the time, maybe just opening the windows would be sufficient. Take a cold shower, have a cold drink. Don't just automatically hit the AC button, and if you do, don't set the temperature unnecessarily low.

UPDATE 

As France suffers through another brutal season of exteme heat, the air conditioning debate is also heating up. A majority there say they would prefer to "suffer from the heat rather than install an air conditioner in order to protect the emvironment", although the latest deadly heatwave is starting to make many French people question those principles. This comes as the far-right Rassemblent National party announced a nationwide air conditioning plan, strongly opposed by the left-wing Insoumise party and others.

It's a similar story in Germany, where historically air conditioning has been largely unnecessary. But hotter summers in.recent years have seen demand for air conditioners and cooling units surge.

Is Mark Carney's extended honeymoon period starting to sour?

Mark Carney has been granted a generous, even unprecedented, honeymoon period as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and as Prime Minister of the country. This is partly - mainly - due to the singular circumstances he has inherited (basically, Donald Trump and the chaos that inevitably follows him around). But, either way, Carney is currently basking in an enviable 67% approval rate, something most other world leaders can only dream of right now, and a comfortable +8% approval of the direction he is taking the country in. After a year in government, Mr. Carney is more popular than when he was elected, and his party now has a small majority, rather than the large minority it was elected with.

This all sounds exceptional, and certainly, compared to the likes of Donald Trump and Keir Starmer, it is. But, in fact, it's not dissimilar to Justin Trudeau's popularity rating a year into his tenure a decade ago, and look how he turned out! The big test of leaders often comes after about 15 months, sometimes referred to as the "15 Month Itch".

After the events of the last few weeks, you have to wonder whether that itch is starting to be felt. At the end of April, fourteen (unspecified) members of the Liberal caucus published a letter bemoaning the government's anti-environmental trajectory. Because it's undeniable the Carney has indeed presided over a wholesale roll-back and deliberate weakening of the environmental initiatives of his predecessor. Among other things, he has repealed the consumer carbon tax, eliminated the EV sales mandate, ended the oil and gas emissions cap, and called a halt to plans to end fossil fuel subsidies. Improbably, Carney maintains he is still an ardent environmentalist and climate change leader, and that he is just being practical and pragmatic, but his actions belie that. To call it a "pivot" hardly does it justice.

Then, just this week, after Mr. Carney followed though on his disastrous pipeline agreement with Alberta, the prominent MP, environmentalist and Liberal Quebec "lieutenant" Steven Guilbeault tendered his resignation, first from his position in the Cabinet and then as a Member of Parliament, on the grounds that he cannot in good conscience watch the Liberal Party abandon its environmental stance. As environment minister, Mr. Guilbeault was the architect of many of the Trudeau-era environmental policies, which he has watched being comprehensively dismantled by Carney. As a man of conscience and principle, it is all he can do to walk away.

Now, not everyone is as principled as Steven Guilbeault. Most of the 67% that still support Mark Carney (including a good proportion of Conservatives) clearly believe, as Carney himself does, that, at this particular moment in time, economic imperatives outweigh the nice-to-have option of environmental initiatives. Even though the consequences of climate change and other environmental deteriorations may be much more important in the long run, it's hard for people to see past the short-term challenges of inflation, job losses, housing shortages, etc. In times of economic fragility, it's always "the economy, stupid", and I get that.

But I wonder whether the growing schism in the Liberal Party between what you might call the "Economy First" and the "Environment First" factions is an important one? 14 out of 174 Liberal MPs is not a huge number, after all, but I do wonder if it might be the start of a fissure, the start of a 15 Month Itch. My guess, though, is not: pragmatism will win out over principle. Stupid.

Mr. Carney's disastrous pipeline deal with Alberta

Mark Carney, much like Justin Trudeau before him, is the master of the grand gesture, the grand announcement, often with little substance behind it. The difference is that, thus far at least, he seems to be managing to carry his public popularity along with him.

Yesterday was the occasion of another such grand announcement. Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith jointly announced, to great fanfare, a climate and energy agreement to follow up on their memorandum of understanding (MOU) last November. For all their talk of urgency, it has still taken six months to get to this next step.

The main item is the construction of a new one-million-barrel-a-day oil pipeline from Alberta to the West Coast. A firm  proposal is to be submitted by Alberta to the major projects office by July 1st, it is to be designated as a project of national interest by October 1st, and construction could start by "as early as" September 1st 2027, and in theory it could be up and running by 2033 or 2034. I suppose, in Canadian terms, that is expeditious, if not downright breakneck.

Of course, there is as yet no private sector proponent willing to stick its neck out and commit to building the thing. Neither is there a confirmed route that is not going to get bogged down in endless controversy and acrimony. Both parties say that they will respect Canada's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples, and the province of British Colombia remains implacably opposed to such a pipeline though its land and coastal waters. BC accuses Carney of pushing through "nationally significant" energy deals without involving the entire country, and of "rewarding" Alberta's bad behaviour and separatist rumblings. 

So, all things considered, we are probably no further forward than we were, despite the grand announcement.

The other part of the announcement was an agreement with Alberta on industrial carbon pricing and emissions reductions. Alberta is to impose on its oil producers a carbon price of $130 a tonne (that is what they would pay for carbon offsets), up from the current level of $95 a tonne, according to a gradually increasing schedule between now and 2040. Yes, 2040! 

However, it turns out that the "floor price" - the price actually enforced by government - will be only $110 a tonne, and even that price will only start to be regulated by 2030, while the floor price will actually start at the ultra-low level of $60 a tonne. Talk about devil in the details! Compare that to the Trudeau-era federal climate plan, which set the price of carbon at $170 a tonne by 2030, and you can see just how much Carney has been swayed and equivocated. Incidentally, the lower carbon price is to apply across the country, pending consultations with other provinces. 

It gets worse. Industrial emitters also get a large carbon price-free allowance before carbon prices, much reduced as they are, even kick in. This is supposed to help them compete in global markets, and I'm sure it does. But it means that the effective carbon price they pay is actually miniscule in many cases. The Canadian Climate Institute estimates that the Canada-Alberta agreement recently struck might add about 16 cents to the cost of producing a barrel of oil by 2030. And this is what Alberta and its oil companies are up in arms about? Talk about "over a barrel".

Environmentalists, of course, are not happy, slamming the deal as betraying the country, undercutting national ambitions on industrial carbon pricing, and sabotaging plans to combat climate change. It puts "Canada's target of net zero by 2050 well out of reach", they say, and its 2030 targets will be put back by at least a decade as a result. Carney is still promising that Canada will meet its 2050 net zero goal, but his promises appear increasingly divorced from reality, and hardly anyone else seems to share his optimism.

But the muck gets yet thicker. Carney also made clear that the pipeline deal is still dependent on the construction of a massive carbon capture project in the Alberta oil sands, the so-called Pathways project, which is to be built built the Oil Sands Alliance. Carney was unequivocal: "No Pathways, no pipeline".

The Pathways initiative is a 400km long pipeline, funded largely by the region's oil industry, that will transport carbon trapped at oil sands facilities to a storage area located under Cold Lake, Alberta. At the moment, though, this whole project is largely theoretical, and the oil company execs involved are increasingly getting cold feet as the costs and technical challenges become apparent. The coalition of potential builders also object the $130 price on carbon that has just been set, however low it might be. This, then, is not going to happen by September 2027 (or even 2033). And, "no Pathways, no pipeline", right?

So, where does all this leave us? Well, nowhere really. For all the grand announcements, we are no closer to getting a new pipeline built than we ever were. Now, that's not necessarily a bad in thing, in my personal opinion. And I do wonder whether this might not be some elaborate house of cards built by Mark Carney - once an environmentalist himself, remember - in full knowledge that it will almost certainly all come tumbling down eventually. Has the wily Carney been playing us (and Alberta) all along?

The next Super El Niño is due this year

Batten down the hatches, we're in for a wild ride this year, weatherwise. We're expecting the strongest El Niño weather pattern EVER in the second half of the year - a "Super El Niño", in the rather alarming argot of some climate scientists. Combined with the effects of climate change, this will probably generate some record-breaking weather in terms of temperatures and rainfall: stronger heat waves, worse droughts, more wildfires, stronger storms and more intense floods (although, as recompense, the Atlantic hurricane season may be less intense).

El Niño is a long-term weather event, usually lasting nine to twelve months, in which sea surface temperatures in the equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean are warmer than normal. This has the effect of altering and de-stabilizing the world's weather patterns for the duration, as it re-distributes heat across the whole planet. These events tend to occur every two to seven years, following no fixed schedule. La Niña, on the either hand, is where the equatorial Pacific is cooler than average, causing different weather patterns that can have their own challenges.

Currently, sea-surface temperatures are rising rapidly, with further intensification expected in the months to follow. The volume and intensity of sub-surface warm water anomalies in the Pacific are as large as have ever been seen, scientists say, "more out of balance than at any time in observed history". 

So the chances are high that this year's El Niño will be the all-time strongest, even more extreme than the previous record-holder of 1877-8. That year's El Niño caused catastrophic famines across India, China, Brazil and elsewhere that killed more than 50 million people (3-4% of the world's population at the time), "arguably the worst environmental disaster to ever befall humanity".

While this year's El Niño may be even stronger, it's effects may not be quite as drastic. These days, we are forewarned by our technology (although we do then have to act on the warnings!) The Super El Niño of 1982-3 was a pivotal turning point in our understanding of the phenomenon, and led to crucial advances in ocean monitoring and real-time tracking. They helped predict the Super El Niños in 1997-8 and 2015-6.

Plus, we are better prepared socially, politically, technologically and economically to deal with the effects - at least in theory, and provided we can stop waging war on each other for long enough to deal with it.

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.

Alternative climate conference gets under way in Santa Marta

I have neglected to mention it thus far, but I would be remiss to ignore the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, happening right now in Santa Marta, Colombia.

With all that they need to come up with a more succinct name or acronym (FICJTAFF?), this seems like a wholly laudable attempt to rescue the climate action movement from the tyranny of the majority. While great things were once hoped for from the UN Climate Change Conferences (or COPS - Conference of the Parties), in recent years they have been increasingly taken over by oil-producing countries that either don't believe in, or don't care about, climate change.

The Netherlands and Colombia have been at the forefront of this new initiative. Over 50 countries are attending the Santa Marta conference, a so-called "coalition of do-ers", representing almost 50% of the global population. Sub-national actors, Indigenous Peoples, social and youth movements, and invited non-governmental organizations will also be represented. 

The USA, under the climate-denying Trump administration, is not even invited, and neither are a whole swathe of other potentially obstructive countries like Middle Eastern oil producers. There is no China, no Russia, to veto promising motions. 

Despite its embarrassing back-pedalling on climate issues under Mark Carney, Canada is indeed attending, although it is sending a team of negotiators rather than higher level government ministers. Along with Nigeria and Australia, it is one of the few oil and gas producers at the summit.

The concept is to see what progressive climate action ideas can be developed without the constant drag and naysaying of the more regressive elements. There will be no flashy binding global treaties, but instead is focussed more on actionable, non-consensus-based pathways. It is seen as a precursor to future negotiations, rather than a final decision-making body. It hopes to set targets and advance concrete pathways to transition away from fossil fuels, which increasingly seems like the only real solution to climate change.

Should we expect much from the conference, other than virtue-signalling and bromides? Is it just a choir preaching to itself? Maybe this first conference might not produce too much, but it will be interesting to see what momentum it generates. And, anyway, do you still expect anything from UN COP conferences?

To tell you the truth, it's nice to be reporting on something other than the United States right now. That feels like a win in itself.

Plug-in solar is coming...

Plug-in solar is coming! I've seen that headline in multiple places recently. And it is kind of a big deal, in a small way.

So, what is plug-in solar anyway? It's "a simple, reliable way to save money by generating your own electricity" from small-scale modular solar panels that connect (via an inverter) to a standard power outlet in your home. It's an easy and affordable way to get started generating your own power. 

Solar panels can be put on any accessible flat surface, such as a balcony, in a front or back yard, or on a roof deck. Unlike a full-scale roof-top grid-tied system, installation is pretty straightforward and can be done without engaging a contractor and a whole lot of bureaucracy. Even renters and apartment dwellers can now reduce their grid dependence.

Plug-in panels come in a range of output sizes from 200W to 1,600W (as compared to a typical rooftop installation of 3,000W to 9,000W), and cost from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. It's not intended to power your whole home, merely to reduce load (particularly during peak times), and to save the consumer some money. Even a small 200W unit can power a fridge or overhead lighting, or be used to recharge laptops, phones, etc, or it can be used remotely to power camping appliances, a small boat, etc. Larger units can of course power larger and more power-hungry appliances.

The average payback time right now is about 5 years, and costs are expected to continue falling as market take-up increases. Annual savings depend on available sunshine hours and the cost of locally produced electricity.

Germany has been doing it for years, since the German government streamlined the rules for power generation without needing approval from electricity utilities back in 2019. The technology is tried, tested and safe. Germany remains the largest market - about 1 in 10 households there use some form of plug-in solar panels. Now, more and more other jurisdictions are starting to cut the red tape to make it easy for consumers to install a plug-in solar system. Plug-in solar is now legal in most EU states (25 of 27), excepting Sweden (puzzling) and Hungary (not so puzzling).r

Utah was the first US state to pass legislation allowing it, and many others have followed suit.(or are in the process). Britain recently changed its rules to allow, and even encourage, it. Embarrassingly, here in Canada, the Canadian Standards Association is still "evaluating" the technology, and there are still "regulatory barriers" to overcome. 

With the crunch on gas prices caused by the US war in Iran, there has never been a better time for plug-in solar.

The challenges of doing science in Trump's America

Here's a good account of how scientific research has had to pivot in Trump's America.

The article deals specifically with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), but I'm sure it applies to any number of government departments and agencies. Scientists and researchers are having to self-censor and find creative ways around the Trump-mandated ban on using MAGA trigger words and phrases like "global warming", "climate change", "solar energy", "alternative energy", "decarbonization", "energy transition", "renewables", "environmental justice", "greenhouse gas emissions", "carbon sequestration", "sustainability", even "safe drinking water". Otherwise, they run the risk of having their research censored or their grant applications denied.

So, instead of using phrases like "climate change", resourceful researchers - those that have not already given up completely or moved away, that is - are trying to use less controversial, softer phrases like "elevated temperatures", "soil health" and "extreme weather", so as not to trigger discovery by the automated tools of the Trump woke police.

I know it reads like a bad science fiction story, but this is really happening in modern-day America. In Trump's America there are about 100-plus words and phrases that are essentially banned in academic and scientific research circles, about a third of them related to climate change (which is, remember, a "hoax"). Some of them are real head-scratchers, like "diesel", "affordable housing", "runoff", "microplastics", "rural water". There are also whole other categories of banned words to do with DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), gender, abortion, immigration, etc. 

Of course, if your whole paper or grant application is about solar energy or affordable housing, it is essentially impossible to avoid these phrases. So, the beleaguered American scientific community is finding alternative sources of funding and alternative publication destinations. And some of them are just leaving for less restrictive and repressive regimes. This is having a huge impact, not only on the American research community, but on that of other countries too, where local talent is now having to compete against well-qualified American ex-patriates and academic exiles (as my son-in-law, who is currently looking for post-doc opportunities abroad, is finding, to his chagrin).

US government department websites have been dilligently "scrubbed" of offensive words like "climate change" and "renewable energy" since early in Trump's second administration. Whole reports have been conveniently removed if they were considered too woke or prejudicial. It makes me wonder: did Trump personally come up with the list of proscribed words and phrases? And who are the people who carry out these bizarre instructions? Talk about the banality of evil.

Imagine working in such a system! Imagine that the field of inquiry you have spent your whole career in (or your future prospective career) is in one of these proscribed areas! Imagine having to avoid using the word "green" or "black" anywhere in your dissertation! I'm sure that many are just hoping to wait it out, on the assumption that "this too shall pass". Others, though, may be second-guessing their whole careers.

I have a suspicion that most Americans are not even aware that this is going on under their noses. Many will not care, of course, those who routinely complain about "radical wokeness" and other such nonsense. But many others will. And if I just found out about it (or at least about the extent of it), I'm sure there are many potentially concerned citizens who have no idea just how close to Margaret Atwood's Gilead or George Orwell's Thought Police modern America has become.

How the Netherlands became an agricultural powerhouse

Having just watched the excellent A Life on Our Planet, a spry 93-year old David Attenborough's 2020 "witness statement" (he's now 99!), it's hard not be cowed by the grand old man's ridiculous optimism in the face of the seemingly insurmountable problems facing the planet.

One thing that he did cite as an example of progress in the right direction (and part of Attenborough's vision of a solution to our environmental ills) was the success of the Netherlands' agricultural endeavours. I think I had some idea that they were leaders in vertical farming and hydroponics, but I had no idea things were so advanced there ... and so successful.

But, yes, it turns out that little Netherlands is now the second biggest food exporter in the world (after the USA, which is 240 times larger). The little densely-populated country - for reference it is about the size of Wales, or the province of Nova Scotia, or half the size of US states like South Carolina or Maine - has very little real estate to spare. Nevertheless, it has devoted more than half of its valuable land to farming, and it has developed one of the world's most intensive and efficient agricultural bases.

After the grim experience of the "Winter of Hunger" under Nazi occupation during World War II, food security became a national priority, and the Netherlands made some important strategic decisions, one of which was focussing on high-value agricultural goods like eggs, meat, cheese, tomatoes, peppers and flowers. There was government subsidization, a strong push towards agricultural education and research, and farmland was rationalized into more efficient larger farms. It pioneered greenhouse growing, which it has since taken to the next level, employing robots and algorithms, hydroponics, computer-controlled watering systems and crop ripeness surveillance, optimized LED artificial lighting, etc. 

Despite all these high-tech solutions, bees are still used to pollinate the plants, and are kept in the greenhouses almost like pampered pets. Much of the picking and quality control and even some of the final packaging, is still done by hand, although often (and increasingly) with AI/computer help. Irrigation water is sparingly applied, recycled and reused, and water usage is one-fiftieth of the global average for equivalent crops. Pests and insects are constantly monitored and detected in real time, allowing for timely attention. Crop yields can be ten times or more than global averages.

This is industrialized agri-business taken to the nth degree, but it's sure as hell effective: in 2024, the country produced $140 billion worth of farmed goods. It has established itself as Europe's top exporter of meat, and about 60% of all crops produced in the country are exported, principally to Germany, the UK, China, and (ironically) even the US.

There are still challenges, though. 

There is some worry about the large carbon footprint of Dutch agriculture, although since the Russian war in Ukraine deprived it of cheap Russian gas, there have been moves to secure home-produced energy from wind and geothermal power. 

With the highest livestock density in Europe, the Netherlands also has the highest ammonia emissions on the continent, causing algae blooms in waterways and playing havoc with some native plant species. Calls to limit these emissions have led to mass protests as farmers see their livelihoods threatened. But changes to the diet of animals, separating their pee and poo, etc, have shown promising results.

There is also an increasing labour shortage in some areas of Dutch agriculture (I'm not really sure why), prompting still more AI, robotization and technology innovation, technology that is also exported across the globe.

So, if you want a business success story with a side of environmental hope, watch Business Insider's 20-minute doc on the Netherlands' agricultural revolution.

Even teabags are full of microplastics

By now, we have pretty much come to understand that microplastics and nanoplastics.(collectively, MNPs) are everywhere, in the food we eat, the water we drink, the very air we breathe. Our bodies are therefore just full of them.

A recent meta-study shows just how many are entering our system through as innocent an activity as drinking a cup of tea. Setting aside MNPs in the water, MNPs leaching from the cup/mug/teapot, and MNPs from the packaging and processing operations, the studies show that the teabags themselves are a significant source of micro- and nano- plastics.

I try to avoid those fancy pyramid-shaped "silk" teabags, which are essentially made of nylon (i.e. plastic). Pour boiling water over them and you have to expect a flood of plastic bits to be released. But traditional "paper" teabags (which are actually primarily made of bleached wood pulp and abaca, a banana plant derivative) are also a source, made worse by the fact that many such paper teabags are treated with polypropylene, epichlorohydrin, etc, to help strengthen and seal them. Not even "biodegradable", "compostable" and PLA "bioplastic" teabags are exempt.

A single teabag, it seems, can release between 1.3 and 14.7 billion MNPs, depending on the study and the methodology. Those are huge and scary numbers, but they do not mean that teabags are killing us, merely that they are contributing to the plastic load in our bodies and the environment, which over time will degrade our health in subtle and opaque ways.

Makes you feel like throwing your hands up in despair and having a cup of tea, doesn't it? Oh, wait...

Carney explains why he still considers himself a climate change leader

Apparently, Mark Carney still sees himself and Canada as a leader on climate change.

In an interview just a couple of days ago, one reporter put it to him starkly: "Along with cutting the EV mandate, you've cut the consumer carbon tax, weakened a commitment to the oil and gas emissions cap, you're exempting Alberta from clean-up energy regulations, and abandoned a promise to plant two billion trees. Do you still consider yourself a leader on climate change?" 

Yow, pretty damning stuff! How did Carney respond? "Absolutely, I consider Canada a leader on climate change, and I'm focussing on climate change results and solutions". Wow. I can feel the cognitive dissonance creeping over me as I write.

To his credit, Carney went on to enumerate what he sees as his justification for his claims, namely: tax relief and support for the entire EV production chain, incentives for consumers to adopt EVs, tightening (two-fold, he says) Canada's greenhouse gas emissions while giving the auto industry flexibility as to how they achieve that, and a plan (to be announced) to double the capacity of Canada's clean electricity system. He also said that the liquid natural gas (LNG) coming out of British Columbia, which he has been encouraging and facilitating, is among the cleanest LNG in the world (for what that's worth), and it is also being twinned with carbon capture and storage technology (albeit largely unproven and unbuilt).

So, credit where credit is due, the guy talks a good game. But let's not be fooled, what he is proposing and talking up is really not as effective or direct a solution to climate change as the various policies he has just abandoned (and even those were not sufficient). I have a lot of respect for Mr. Carney, and I believe he is doing a reasonably good job in most respects under very trying circumstances. But on the environment and climate change, he is absolutely guilty of pulling the wool over our eyes. (If you want to see what you actually need to do to make EVs a mainstream option, look no further than Norway.)

UPDATE

This also comes as the Canadian Climate Institute warns that the country is not in track to meet any of its climate change and carbon emission goals - not the 2026 interim target, not the 2030 Paris Agreement commitment, not even the long-term 2050 zero-emission goal. The reason? "A slackening of policy effort over the last year, marked by the removal or weakening of climate policies across the country". A year, let's be clear, when Mark Carney was in control.

Hard data seems surprisingly hard to find. As of 2023 (the latest data available, for some reason, and long before Carney was involved), Canada had only achieved a 9% reduction in emissions from 2005 levels, while moat other G7 nations had achieved reductions of around 30%. Even the USA managed 17%, although that was before Trump took the reins, to be fair.

Dropping Canada's EV mandate illustrates the failings of our auto sector

The way I see it, Canada's decision to drop its electric vehicle (EV) mandate, widely expected to be announced in the next day or two, in favour of a new, less-aggressive system of fuel efficiency standards and credits, represents a failure on the part of the Canadian auto industry - at the production, wholesale and retail levels - as well as, to some extent, the Canadian public.

It's not that the Trudeau-era climate change policies were inherently bad ones, as Pierre Poilievre and the CEOs of multiple automotive companies would have us think. Mark Carney would have supported them wholeheartedly at one time - he was a very vocal apologist of carbon taxes at one time. But Carney is pragmatic to a fault, and not fond of grand gestures and statements of principle (in the way that Trudeau was very fond of them, to a fault).

But our automotive industry just did not put much effort into actively pursuing the EV policy. It just sat back and hoped it would happen of its own accord. And, while some members of the public (like me!) did the right thing - i.e. go electric - for its own sake, most others also sat back and waited for everybody else to do the right thing, which is never going to work. Then, when the Trudeau government started sending mixed messages on its environmental commitments, and when EV rebates were withdrawn, the driving public just threw up its hands and said, "well, what can we do?"

Carney, once a staunch environmentalist, has gradually dismantled (or at least scaled back) most of the progressive environmental initiatives of the previous administration. Scrapping the EV mandate is just another such, although one welcomed by the lazy domestic auto sector. Relying on tailpipe standards would be a return to the pre-EV mandate, pre-carbon tax status quo, which, you might remember, was not particularly effective in reducing our carbon emissions. There is talk of bringing back some EV rebates, but we must wait to see what that entails, just as we need to wait to see how stringent the tailpipe emission regulations will be. (We don't have a progressive US model to follow this time.)

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE

The new Liberal EV policy, as expected, has scrapped a firm EV sales mandate, although it did restate non-enforceable (and still rather improbable) "goals" of 75% EVs by 2035 and 90% by 2040. This is still much more modest than the Trudeau-era goal of 100% by 2035.

To that end, the announcement details a return of incentive rebates of $5,000 for full battery EVs and $2,500 for plug-in hybrid EVs, although even that modest rebate is set to reduce each year until it reaches $2,000 for full EVs and $1,000 for PHEVs by 2030. The rebates also only apply to EVs with a sales value below $50,000, unless it is a model that is made in Canada (which I guess is fair enough), and then only for imports from a country with which Canada has a free-trade agreement, which disqualifies those 49,000 Chinese EVs a year that Canada recently agreed to. So, pretty carefully-worded.

The package also includes $1.5 billion towards improving the country's EV fast-charging network, given that range anxiety is still perceived as a major barrier to consumers looking to switch to an electric vehicle.

It also installs new supports for Canadian auto workers as the EV transition ramps up, including a "work-sharing grant" and a "workforce alliance", as well as committing $3 billion from the existing Strategic Response Fund and $100 million from the Regional Tariff Response Initiative to help accelerate investment in Canada's auto sector.

Interestingly, the main thrust of the new rules was supposed to be the implementation of more stringent tailpipe carbon emissions standards for Canadian vehicles, but we didn't get to find out about those - they will supposedly be outlined later this year, and will apply to model years 2027 to 2032. So, in a way, the bad news (for many people, and certainly for vehicle manufacturers) has been postponed, presumably lest it rain on Mr. Carney's EV parade. We are told it is supposed to "ultimately lead to emission reductions equivalent to 75% of all 2035 automobile sales falling into the EV category". Except, I'm not really sure what on earth that means (I'm not even sure the grammar is right!)

The auto sector has been generally welcoming of the new policy, although - shock horror! - the opposition Conservatives appear to disagree with pretty much everything in it.

The US wind industry overcomes the MAGA blowhards

As has been reported repeatedly, here in this blog and elsewhere, Donald Trump (and, by extension, his administration, which blindly and unquestioningly follows whatever he says) hates wind turbines, particularly offshore wind turbines. He calls them "losers" and "the scam of the century". No-one is quite sure why he hates them so much - his convenient "national security" argument is far from convincing - but there are theories. 

Anyway, in pursuance of this irrational hate, Trump has issued several edicts banning various wind farm developments off the east coast of America, including some that were all but complete. The states and developers involved have taken recourse to the courts to try to rectify this, and to recoup some of the billions of dollars they have already sunk into these projects.

And they are winning.

Three separate federal judges, including one appointed by Trump, have ruled Trump's decrees illegal and allowed construction to resume on windfarms off the coasts of New England, New York and Virginia.

So, despite Congress stopping incentives and the Republican administration imposing a variety of roadblocks in the way of permitting, the wind industry persists against all odd

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. Plus. Circular Materials seem to be able to recycle a few more items than the old City-run program - toothpaste tubes, black plastic containers, nothing too crazy

The change is supposed to save Ontario's municipalities about $200 million a year (about $10 million in the case of the city 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?

Canadian cities triumph in new sustainability index

Well, this is surprising. A new ranking of the greenest and most sustainable cities in the world has three Canadian cities in the top ten, with one Canadian city right at the top of the pile.

The Green Cities Index, by Dutch sustainability experts Reinders Corporation (which makes industrial climate systems, dehumidifiers, etc), takes into account accessibility of green space per capita, renewable energy usage, air quality, public transportation efficiency, bikeability, and a few other measures. It shows Vancouver at No. 1, above the likes of Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Montreal is at No 7, and hometown Toronto comes in at No. 9.

I don't think of our cities as being in the same league as many European cities as regards sustainability, so this comes as quite a (pleasant) surprise. Vancouver scored particularly highly on green space and renewable energy, and had the best air quality in the study (this was presumably measured outside of wildfire season).

The full top 10 is:

1. Vancouver, Canada
2. Oslo Norway
3. Stockholm, Sweden
4. Munich, Germany
5. Zurich, Switzerland
6. Copenhagen, Denmark
7. Montreal, Canada
8. Sam Francisco, USA
9. Toronto Canada
10. London, UK

Interestingly, although the findings are reported by several media outlets, I can't find a link to the original Reinders index. Also interesting that a similar exercise by Canadian sustainability organization Corporate Knights has Vancouver down at No. 10, Toronto at No. 15, and, yes, the Scandinavian cities at the top.

Agave is the new plastic

I had drinks today through an agave-based straw. Who knew there was such a thing?

The Sustainable Agave Company makes all those hard-to-replace single-use-plastic items like straws, cutlery and cups out of waste agave from the tequila industry.

It felt for all the world just like plastic. Definitely not going soggy anytime soon. I was impressed.

Even better, although all the stuff on their website is priced in US dollars, it turns out the company is Canadian, based in Toronto, and had been around since 2020.

Mark Carney seems like a nice guy, but he has abandoned the environment

Prime Minister Mark Carney's honeymoon period seems to be extending much longer than I had expected. Most liberals still seem to like him, and many conservatives have joined them (which shouldn't surprise us too much given that most of his policies are very much conservative ones, regardless of the party he is supposed to be leading).

Me, I'm feeling a bit sour about the guy. Perhaps the best that can be said is that he's not Pierre Poilievre. And he's been given a crappy job, to be fair, battling against the headwinds of Trumpism. But he has now abandoned too many liberal/progressive stances to be taken seriously as a Liberal or a progressive. Most glaringly, he has abandoned the environment in general and the fight against climate change in particular. 

I said this to a Liberal friend recently and she insisted that, no, no, no, he hasn't abandoned it, he has a plan, a long-term plan. But that's not at all evident to me. It seems to me that Carney - who once talked a good game on climate change and other issues - has decided that the economy is more important than the environment. And, short-term, he may be right, but long-term this will take some recovering from.

Anyway, someone else has done the hard work of keeping track of the extent to which Carney has dropped the climate change ball. University of Toronto prof and climate activist Laura Tozer lists the evidence in a handy little crib-sheet on her LinkedIn post:

❌ Suspended Canada's Clean Electricity Regulations in Alberta ❌ Weakened methane regulations ❌ Scrapped the Oil & Gas Sector Emissions Cap ❌ Abandoned Canada’s consumer carbon pricing system ❌ Ended Canada Greener Homes retrofit program to electrify and improve household efficiency ❌ Ended Canada Greener Homes Loan Program to electrify and improve household efficiency ❌ Ended the Electric Vehicles (iZEV) program ❌ Delayed Canada’s Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate ❌ Passed bill C5 ‘Building Canada Act’ to allow government to override 12 laws and 7 regulations, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, for designated projects ❌ Committed to clawing back Canada’s anti-greenwashing legislation ❌ Announced plans to eliminate a tax on private jets and yachts ❌ Weakened the Alberta industrial carbon price from the $170/tonne it should have been (if the federal government enforced its own policies) to $130/tonne

Not a very auspicious summary, is it? And I don't see much evidence of a plan there, long-term or otherwise.