New green addition to Toronto's skyline ruled inadmissible

Toronto's skyline has changed out of all recognition in the decades we have lived here. Many of the new high-rise buildings downtown are pretty forgettable, to be honest, although in the last 5 years or so several more interesting additions have appeared.

A big new proposed development round the back of Union Station, right in the heart of downtown, would at least be in the category of "more interesting", but its construction has been doggedly blocked by city planners. The proposed Union Centre, designed by Danish-American architects Bjarke Ingels Group and jointly developed by Allied Properties and Westbank Corp, kind of looks like four shiny glass skyscrapers attached to each other side by side (slightly offset). It has a green roof garden and part of the outside façade is given over to green walls (again slightly offset). 

Inside, the four 52-storey towers are connected, so that each floor could be a massive 30,000 square feet in area, ideal for tech companies  and particularly for data centres and the acres of computer servers they require. (Or it could be split up.) The building is planned to be net-zero-carbon, utilizing a district heating system (which the Danes excel at) that uses the excess heat from all those computer servers. It would offer a million square feet of office space right downtown, right on the subway.

Anyway, the architects have been fighting against city officials for almost two years now for approval to get the building started (it is "shovel-ready, and does not require any additional outside financing). It's an interesting, novel design, and a lot more eco-friendly than most of Toronto's buildings (and could therefore contribute to Toronto's fight against climate change), and will offer lightning fast internet connections on site. What's not to like?

The city's urban design staff seem to be mainly objecting of the width and alignment of the building. Yes, it's about 90m wide, and it's aligned along the east-west axis of the city (parallel to the lake). The city says that it "looks too wide on the skyline". Wha'...? So, if it were aligned north-south it would be OK? Oh, and it casts a large shadow (which the consultant, on the other hand, describes as "very minor"). 

They seem like relatively minor quibbles to me, I have to say. And, God knows, we need to be doing something positive on the climate change front. Can we not have an interesting, out-there building for once?

Breakdancing makes the Olympics - but is it sport?

With all due respect to practitioners, the announcement that breakdancing is to be an Olympic sport from Paris 2024 onwards is probably not going to rehabilitate the Olympics in the eyes of most people.

The Olympics brand has taken a big hit in recent years, what with drug scandals, allegations of bribery and financial irregularities, and a general image of corruption and sleaziness. Adding in breakdancing (or "breaking" as they insist on calling it, in the belief that they are somehow being more "authentic"), along with skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing, while paring back the plethora of wrestling and boxing categories, isn't going to do anything to help that.

To be fair, that is not the stated aim of the International Olympic Committee. They see this as a move towards luring a younger audience to their 4-yearly spectacle, and making it more "relevant", i.e. it is, like everything else the IOC does these days, all about the money. Whether these changes will indeed lure in millions of surfer dudes, skateboard dudettes and "urban" (i.e. black) dance aficionados is anyone's guess, but there are also other considerations at play here.

Like the perennial heart-searching that goes on in the visual arts world ("but is it art?"), many people will be asking "but is it sport?" Hell, I would think that many breakdancers will be asking the same thing, having laboured under the misapprehension for decades that dancing is an artform. Coincidentally, this comes just a day after a chess Grand Master referred to chess as a "sport" during an interview I watched. 

Or is it just further distancing the modern Olympics from the simple and honest ideals that originally inspired it? Is it turning yet further into an entertainment spectacular or a nationalist gong show or a cynical commercial enterprise?

How do we deal with COVID fatigue?

At this point, we're all a bit fatigued from this COVID thing, and the endlessly changing (and often mutually inconsistent) rules we are supposed to follow to mitigate its spread. 

The lockdown we followed here in Ontario worked reasonably well back in March and April, although our leaders were then seduced into opening up too quickly and too comprehensively over the summer. Rather than running it down to effectively zero like some other countries (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia, etc), we let up our guard and allowed it to come back stronger than ever. 

The second wave lockdown we are in now has been much less effective, and cases and deaths continue to creep up and up, in Ontario and most of the rest of Canada (and the world, for that matter). And I truly believe that this is more about rule fatigue than anything the virus is doing differently. So, how do we address this problem, given that vaccines are going to take some months to be distributed and to have some tangible effect on the spread of the virus?

A growing chorus of health experts and epidemiologists are of the opinion that there are just too many rules, and that some of those rules are just not useful rules. They argue that taking out some of the less effective rules - like outdoor mask mandates, one-way routes through stores, wiping down groceries and packages, or letting deliveries sit for 3 days - might ensure better observance of the more important ones, like avoiding the 3 C's: close contact, closed spaces, and crowds. In the same way, it is argued, reducing the quarantine period before or after travel from 14 days to 10, or even 7 (with testing), may actually be more beneficial if it encourages more compliance. As one consultant pointed out, a public health policy that people don't follow is, by definition, a failed policy.

I'm inclined to agree, with the important proviso that this also needs to be accompanied by a clear and concise communication of the rationale for the changes. This is not a Great Barrington Declaration-style let-it-all-run-rampant philosophy. This is a much more nuanced, reasoned and practical suggestion. Keep it simple, concentrate on the basics, and communicate (and preferably police).

Open letter from Ontario businesses actually does have some merit

There has been controversy about Ontario's latest COVID-l9 lockdown since the get-go. Well, of course there has - it's impossible to please all the people all the time.

In particular, there has been controversy about the closing down of "non-essential businesses", partly because of the definition of "non-essential" (just as there were arguments about that during the first wave lockdown), but also because people see big box stores like WalMart and Costco remaining open (on the grounds that they also sell food, an essential item) while small family-owned and independent stores are closed down. 

In this context, nearly 50 major Canadian retailers have issued an open letter asking the Ontario government to reconsider this policy. Corporate signatories include Canadian Tire, Indigo, IKEA, Hudson's Bay, MEC, Old Navy, PetSmart, Staples, Toys'R'Us, and many more household names. Now, normally I would just write this off as big business whining about regulations that curb their profit-making ability, and remind them that public safety always trumps economic considerations. But, the more I think about it, the more I realize that they may actually have a point in this particular case.

The letter argues that non-essential retail stores are closed even though the number of COVID cases attributed to these businesses is minimal. The letter specifically asserts that "only 0.2% to 0.9% of recent weekly cases related to outbreaks have been associated with retail environments", although I have no idea where they got those figures ("according to the Government of Ontario's own statistics", it says).

Furthermore, the letter argues, the ban has not reduced the total number of shoppers (debatable), merely forced the same number of people into fewer stores, with consequent increased health risks, and encouraged shoppers to travel outside of the lockdown areas to other jurisdictions where shops remain open, with consequent increased health risks in those areas. 

While both these points are probably logically true, they are mutually inconsistent to some extent in that, if people are travelling further afield to shop, then there can't also be the same number of people shopping in the lockdown areas, as claimed.

Be that as it may, in general terms, the arguments do have some merit, and perhaps the current government policy actually is "an ineffective policy" which is decimating the small businesses of the region unnecessarily. I'm not sure that the policy is actually "making things worse", as the letter claims, but it is probably not making things appreciably better.

The signatory companies suggest a policy of allowing non-essential businesses to open at 25% of their capacity - along with the usual measures of mandatory masks, enforced social distancing, and increased sanitation - thus putting fewer shoppers in more stores and reducing the potential for community spread, while allowing small businesses to open during the make-or-break pre-Christmas period.

I have kind of surprised myself by agreeing with all this. But this is not the Great Barrington Declaration; it is altogether more modest, reasoned and reasonable. I do know that I personally feel safer in smaller stores than bigger ones, and I have been deliberately avoiding the big supermarkets and big box stores where at all possible. 

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, however, when asked about this initiative, has refused to countenance the suggested changes, saying merely that "I have to listen to the health experts" and "health trumps my personal belief of doing something". Except, of course, that he has been ignoring the health experts for much of the year so far. And now suddenly he gets religion?

UPDATE

Hudson's Bay Company has now gone a step further, effectively taking the Ontario government to court, and demanding a judicial review of its lockdown rules in Toronto and Peel, which the company calls "unreasonable" and "unfair".

UPDATE UPDATE

The Ontario Superior Court has dismissed HBC's application for a judicial review of the province's lockdown rules, agreeing with the province's lawyers' argument that the lockdowns are necessary to minimize health risks. 

More deaths each day in USA than on 9/11

As the daily death toll from COVID-19 in the USA reached 3,165 on Wednesday, the States finally crossed a grim milestone that was predicted a few weeks ago: more coronavirus deaths each day than the total deaths on 9/11 (which was 2,996). It came as no surprise to discover that a Twitter hashtag #911EveryDay has already been going for some time.

And the daily toll is expected to increase still further to 4,000 a day or more, especially with a predicted Thanksgiving spike due soon. Unbelievable.

Adding seaweed to cattle diets can significantly reduce their impact on global warming

I had read about this before, but neglected to comment on it. However, it could be kind of a big deal in the fight against climate change which, although you may not realize it from a quick perusal of news feeds, is still ongoing.

Methane from livestock burps and farts makes up a surprisingly large element of our greenhouse gases. There are, after all, about a billion cows worldwide, and it is cows (and specifically the way they repeatedly burp up already-eaten food and chew it up as cud in order to digest it) that are the main offenders here. Other domesticated ruminants like sheep and goats also burp for the same reason, but have a much smaller "methane footprint" than cows. Cow farts are also a contributor of methane to the  atmosphere, but to a much smaller degree (about 5%) than their burping.

Methane is not as well-known a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, but it is a much more powerful one, warming the earth 23 times (or over 80 times, depending on what you read and the time frame used) as much as a similar volume of carbon dioxide, even if it is shorter-lived in the atmosphere. All in all, agriculture accounts for about 14-18% of greenhouse gases (although the calculation is somewhat fraught and contentious, especially when we are combining the effects of different gases) and the burps of ruminants make up a good proportion of that. By some estimates, about 5% of all greenhouse gases are due to cow burps alone.

So, anything that will help reduce the amount  of methane cows produce will help, and could help a lot. Not eating cows would definitely help, and that is starting to happen, especially in this age of Beyond Meat and Impossible Burgers (most of which are actually eaten by meat-eaters).

But the impetus for writing this article is the finding that adding a very specific kind of seaweed to a cow's diet can very significantly reduce the amount of methane it produces. There has already been some research on adding garlic to cattle diets, which decreases their flatulence to some extent, but adding some tropical red seaweeds (specifically asparagopsis armata and asparagopsis taxiformis) can have a huge effect on the way a cow digests its food. In one study, adding just 2% of a. taxiformis to their food reduced methane emissions by nearly 99%. Another study yielded a 95% reduction in methane by replacing 5% of the diet with red seaweed.

The red seaweed effect works through a compound called bromoform, which inhibits the action of an enzyme that produces methane during a cow's digestion, although it is not really well understood why this particular type of seaweed works so well. Studies are ongoing to ensure that the seaweed remains effective in real-world applications, that is shelf-stable, and is not unduly affected by heat and light. But seaweed farms to commercially develop the crop are already springing up in Australia and elsewhere.

Bear in mind, though, that much more methane is produced by the oil and gas industry and decay in landfill dumps than cows ever will. It helps to keep these things in perspective.

Anti-homosexuality Hungarian MEP caught with his trousers down

Well, this is precious. Hungarian MEP Joszef Szajer, a top figure and founding member of Victor Orban's ultra-right wing Fidesz party was caught attending what Belgian media are calling a gay sex party.

The party, in Brussels, was raided by police for violating lockdown rules, and Mr, Szajer was one of the 20 men charged. He insisted that he wasn't doing drugs like everyone else, although drugs were found on him. But the incident was embarrassing enough to the party, which takes a hardline anti-homosexuality stance, that the MEP resigned immediately, citing "a personal failing". Mr. Szajer, who was caught shinning down a drainpipe to escape the scene, was apparently not the only member attending the party who claimed diplomatic immunity.

It will be interesting to see Orban's explanation of it all.

Ignore the Conservatives, Canada is well-placed for COVID vaccines

Well, go figure. Federal Conservative leader Erin O' Toole, Ontario's Conservative Premier Doug Ford and Alberta Premier Jason Kenney (oh, look, another Conservative!) are all publicly tearing strips off Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government for poor management of Canada's coronavirus vaccine procurement.

I guess that's what opposition parties are supposed to do: they oppose, loudly, on principle, and regardless of the importance of their quibbles or the probity of their arguments. It's boring, especially during a crisis that would benefit from a bit of national unity, but it's party politics.

There have been outraged (and highly partisan) complaints that Canada put "all our eggs in the basket of China" by backing the joint CanSino vaccine initiative, which fizzled out mainly due to, you guessed it, politics. Furthermore, there have been attempts to suggest that Canada is at the "back of the line" for vaccine imports from the USA and UK. Either way, it is all Justin Trudeau's fault, and "hard-working Canadians" will suffer as a result of his ineptitude.

Except, unfortunately, neither of those claims appear to be true. What? Conservative fake news? Surely not!

Canada has clearly not put all its eggs in the Chinese basket, because we have contracts for 429 million vaccine doses from seven major international pharmaceutical companies. This is "the most doses potentially per capita of any country in the world", apparently, and, in this age of diversity, "the most diverse portfolio of any country for vaccines". These include the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines which will probably be the first, and possibly best, to hit the market. The government has committed over $1 billion to this end. 

And, as for being at the back of the line, Moderna's chairman and co-founder recently came out publicly to explicitly explain that, "Canada is not at the back of the line", and that Canada was in fact among the first countries to make a pre-order with the company. We are actually very well placed as regards the vaccines. Moreover, the necessary work towards Health Canada approval of the vaccines is progressing in the background even before they are legally released, so that delays should be minimal. Although, frankly, who's to say that we should be at the front of the line anyway?

Arguably, Canada should perhaps be in the vaccine production business, not just importing them, but our attempt to do so (with CanSino) was unsuccessful. Our lack of production facilities can be laid at least as much with the science cuts of the Harper years as with anything Justin Trudeau has or has not done. In the scheme of things, we are a relatively small country, and it is kind of difficult to justify having under-utilized top-of-the-line vaccine production capacity for decades on end just on the off-chance a pandemic should come along. (Actually, Canada can, and does, make vaccines, just not ones that can be used against COVID-19).

All in all, Canada is in a very good position vis-a-vis COVID vaccinations, and all those Conservative politicians who are complaining are talking out of their hats based on a poor understanding of the situation, and just looking to score cheap political points. Plus ça change...

UPDATE

The news that the UK has become the first Western country to approve a vaccine (the Pfizer/BioNTech one that Canada also has in its portfolio) has only served to increase the hysteria and sniping from opposition politicians, even though neither the USA nor the EU has yet approved it either (and some, including Dr. Anthony Fauci in the USA, feel the UK has moved TOO quickly - the European Medicines Agency has actually deliberately slowed and delayed its assessment of the Pfizer vaccine, and compare, for example, the much more measured and cautious approach of South Korea). 

All eyes are now on how the UK deals with the logistical aspects of the rollout, and how the general public will tolerate the vaccines. I for one am glad we do not have to deal with that level of international scrutiny. I'm quite happy to move slower and benefit from the (good or bad) experience of others. 

And I think we should also be cognizant of the fact that rolling out the vaccine will not be a quick process, for the UK or for any other country. The difference of a few days or even weeks will not, in the scheme of things, make a lot of difference. This is not a race. Let's do this thing properly and cautiously.