Why Hydro-Québec has to turn down public money

It is an unfortunate aspect of globalization that local economies can suffer through no fault of their own, but purely as a result of international economic forces. Perhaps the most obvious example is the way political and economic turmoil on the other side of the world can affect oil prices here in oil-producing Canada. It is the cost of doing business with the modern world.

Another such example has reared its head as electricity provider Hydro-Québec has felt obliged to turn down a substantial amount of public money to expand its electricity exports into Ontario and other Canadian provinces. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is offering $2.5 billion over the next 3 years for low carbon initiatives, including new transmission lines that would transmit clean hydroelectricity from Quebec (which has a glut of it) to other provinces, including Ontario and coal-reliant provinces like Nova Scotia. This would be a great boon to Canada's international climate change obligations under the Paris Agreement, and a large element of the federal government's plan for stimulus spending for a green, clean, post-pandemic revival

However, Hydro-Québec feels it has to reject the offer because most of its current exports (about three-quarters) go across the border to neighbouring US states, and only a quarter goes to other Canadian provinces like Ontario and New Brunswick. The company worries that accepting federal government subsidies would contravene the terms of trade treaties with the American states, eliciting accusations of unfair competition, and thereby threaten its existing (lucrative) business with the US.

It's a bit of a ridiculous situation, but there is no obvious way out of it. 

As the COVID-19 virus mutates, will the vaccine still be effective?

There is evidence that the COVID-19 virus is constantly mutating, There are an estimated 25 mutations separating today's virus from the one that surfaced in Wuhan, China, a year ago. That's no surprise; that's what viruses do.

In Britain, for example, there are two main new mutated strains (mutation 501, and a H69/V70 deletion), largely affecting the densely-populated southeast of the country. Both of these mutations affect the virus' spikes, the part that the virus particles use to latch onto and bind with other cells, and thereby transmit and spread the virus. Research on different strains is still ongoing, and it is too early to make any sweeping or definitive conclusions. But there is no evidence that these strains are able to transmit more easily, cause more serious symptoms or, crucially, render the vaccines useless. 

All the main vaccines being developed and, in some cases, already being administered, affect the spike proteins by training the immune system to attack the spikes. However, the body learns to attack multiple parts of the spike, so health authorities believe that the vaccines will still work perfectly well against these variants of the virus.

As the virus continues to mutate over time, though, it is quite possible that we will need to administer updated versions of the vaccines in the years ahead, possibly every year, much as we do for flu.

Why is Bhutan suddenly establishing diplomatic relations?

I read today that the tiny, isolated state of Bhutan has established diplomatic relations with Israel. No, this is not another in the series of great diplomatic triumphs that Donald Trump has brokered (ha!): Bhutan is neither Arabic nor in the Middle East. Indeed, the main question that arises is: "why"?, and more specifically, "why bother?"

Bhutan is a mountainous kingdom in the eastern reaches of the Himalayas (technically a constitutional monarchy since 2008, when it held its first democratic elections), perched serenely between India, Tibet, Nepal and Bangladesh. It is a mainly Buddhist state, with a minority Hindu population, probably best known for using a "Gross National Happiness index" rather than GDP to measure success (probably mainly because it is extremely poor by traditional measures). And it is tiny, about the size of Switzerland or Taiwan (or substantially smaller than, say, the province of Nova Scotia), with a population of less than 800,000, similar to, say, Fiji or Luxembourg.

Historically, Bhutan has been notoriously isolationist, and has had a very cautious approach to opening up commercial and diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. It only opened up to (very limited) tourism in the 1970s, and the internet and television were only allowed in 1999. This, and its small size and poverty, has meant that it still only has diplomatic relations with 53 countries, including none of the five UN Security Council countries (USA, UK, France, China, Russia). Only seven countries have embassies there, of which neighbouring India's is by far the most important.

You can kind of understand Bhutan's lack of official international channels. After all, diplomatic relations cost money it can ill afford. And why should Bhutan feel the need to establish official diplomatic relations with countries like Belgium or Chile, particularly if it is not looking to expand trade or tourism in a big way?

There has, nevertheless, been a flurry of diplomatic activity in recent months, with UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, and now Israel, all establishing official relations. I still have no idea why. My best guess is that Bhutan is increasingly worried by the ultra-nationalist Modi administration in India. After all, neighbouring Sikkim was once an independent mountain state very similar to today's Bhutan; then, in 1975, Sikkim was summarily annexed by India and is now just another Indian state. Maybe Bhutan sees another such annexation in the tea leaves. And what would that do to its Gross National Happiness? Maybe it feels that some support in the UN might not be such a bad thing after all.

What can be behind the continued Republican claims of election irregularities?

In an absolutely bizarre and incomprehensible exercise in magical thinking, more and more defeated Republican candidates are alleging that they actually won, and were only displaced by fraudulent and illegal Democratic nefariousness.

Just a few examples: Loren Culp, the unsuccessful Republican nominee for governor in Washington, who lost the election by 13 percentage points, is now claiming, five weeks after the election, that he was robbed of the governorship by a rigged election; a defeated Republican  congressional candidate in the Democratic stronghold of Los Angeles is refusing to concede; a Republican candidate in Maryland, beaten by a margin of 40%, is loudly complaining about "irregularities" that led to her loss; a Tennessee candidate who lost by 57% is still convinced that she actually won.

This is extraordinary behaviour, especially given that Trump and the Republicans have now lost over 50 legal cases alleging electoral irregularities and fraud, including that big one before the extremely Republican-heavy Supreme Court, supported by an extraordinary 18 Republican states and over 100 Republican lawmakers (oh, and Donald Trump).

So, what can be going on here? Are they all just really bad losers? Do they think that there is some political advantage to be gained? Are they just being browbeaten (and/or hypnotized or threatened) by Trump, who is looking for some moral support in his own sorry legal challenges? Is it supposed to make life for Joe Biden and his incoming administration more difficult in some way (this is one theory for Trump's continued refusal to concede the election)? Like so many things that involve Trump, it's really hard to know, and for us mere mortals to understand.

What is actually happening, though, is that many GOP leaders and rank-and-file Republicans are just becoming more and more embarrassed at these antics. As Larry Hogan, Republican governor of Maryland, wryly commented: "We're beginning to look like we're a banana republic. It's time for them to stop the nonsense. It just gets more bizarre every single day." Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor and Trump advisor has called Trump's legal manoeuvres a "national embarrassment". Long-time Republican advisor Karl Rove admonishes, "He's not helping himself or the country ... he is on the edge of looking like a sore loser". On the edge? Most of the world is looking away, embarrassed, as the once-great country of America makes a total fool of itself in the full glare of the international media.

Meantime, pro-Trump rallies and protests are still taking place, some of them violent, and some them with far-right groups front and centre. But these are, by and large, not educated, supposedly responsible people who are looking to represent millions of people in some of the highest offices in the land. Such people are supposed to know better. But then, look at the role model they have before them.

Perhaps the only good thing that could come out of this is that the GOP might completely implode, and shatter into factions for years to come (take note of the "Destroy the GOP" chants at a pro-Trump rally in Washington DC recently).

Solid state batteries show huge promise, but what does that actually mean?

I've been doing some research recently on electric vehicles for our next family car, and I've been pleased to see how much batteries and range have improved since last time I researched them (and ended up bottling out and going for a hybrid).

But then I just read an article about solid state car batteries and now have an idea of how much more things could improve very soon. Toyota has been testing such a battery in concept vehicles for some time, and is expected to officially unveil the technology as early as next year, with a view to commercial release by 2025. Volkswagen is also working on a solid state battery.

Solid state batteries promise to double the range of electric cars (over the lithium-ion batteries currently used by most electric vehicles) and, at the same time, cut charging times to as little as 10 to 20 minutes (as compared to several hours currently). Also, they are not as heavy, and are less affected by cold temperatures. This is, then, a big deal.

But what does solid state actually mean?

Solid state batteries use both solid electrodes and solid electrolytes, as opposed to the liquid (or polymer) electrolytes used by the more traditional lithium-ion batteries. As a result, solid state batteries are less flammable, more stable, and allow for higher energy densities. Polyether and lithium phosphorus oxynitride are two commonly used solid electrolytes in battery development, if that means anything to you, though other oxides, sulphides, phosphates and solid polymers are also candidates. The main challenge appears to be bringing down the production costs.

Exciting times in electric car production, then, but probably not relevant to my next purchase decision (or possibly even the one after).

Why Canada is getting its Pfizer vaccines from Belgium

Canada gets its first batch of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine this weekend - a paltry 250,000 doses, but hey, better than nothing - and the mood of the nation seems to have risen overnight as a result, despite the news about adverse allergic reactions, the onerous logistics required, and the fact that we'll still be wearing masks for many months to come regardless. Such is the desperation for any inkling of good news.

But then I read that the batch of vaccines (and presumably the larger batches that will follow?) is being flown from a Pfizer plant in the small town of Puurs in northern Belgium, first to Cologne, Germany, then to UPS's main US hub in Louisville, Kentucky, when it will be divided up into smaller shipments to the various provinces in Canada. What a convoluted route, and all this at -70°C! Not to mention that this puts Canada's vaccines at risk from ultra-nationalist Republican types planning a heist to vouchsafe the first vaccines for true-blood Americans! (Only slightly joking.)

But wait, isn't Pfizer an American company? I know that the heavy lifting of the design and development of the vaccine was done by Mainz, Germany-based partner BioNTech SE, and that Pfizer is mainly contributing its commercial manufacturing and distribution heft. Incidentally, this vaccine was not developed through the US's much-vaunted Operation Warp Speed program, despite the claims of the Trump administration: BioNTech received its development money from the German government.

But can the vaccine not be manufactured in the USA, at least for the north American market? Pfizer's own website explains that, "The Puurs site is being used primarily for European supply, but will also serve as back up to Kalamazoo, Michigan for the US market". So, presumably, the US (and Canada) market will eventually be served from Kalamazoo, "the largest manufacturing site in the Pfizer network", but it is not yet up to speed.

It turns out that Canada's supplies of the Moderna vaccine is also going to be coming from Europe, even though the Moderna vaccine was developed in the USA by an American company. Manufacture will be in Switzerland, with the final bottling (vialling?) taking place in Spain! Ah, the joys of globalization! Can this really be the most efficient arrangement capitalism can come up with?

And the Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine? Most of the manufacturing is in Oxford and Keele in the UK, but they also have some manufacturing capacity in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium.

UPDATE

Fast forward a month and more, and Pfizer's supply of vaccines to Canada has dried up completely, as their Belgian plant inexplicably decides to refit to allow for greater production (at just the time when everyone is clamouring for it - like, they didn't realize it would be such a popular product?)

At the same time, the European Union is threatening to make its exports of vaccines in general more difficult, largely as a tit-for-tat retaliation against Britain's AstraZeneca, which has failed to fulfill the promised deliveries to the EU. And the AstraZeneca plant in question? Yup, Belgium.

Why do the vaccine companies not just license manufacturing companies in lots of different countries - including Canada? Why does it all need to be so centralized? Surely, all they need to do is to provide the recipe, maybe provide some quality control, and rake in billions in royalties and commissions, as other countries assume some control and independence over their own vaccine rollout.

Canada grossly over-orders vaccines, while poorer countries may have none

Canada currently has orders in place for 414 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines from seven different companies. This is for a population of 38 million, so enough (even taking into account that most vaccines require two doses to be effective) to vaccinate the whole population at least five times over.

Now, I understand that we may not actually take up all of these options, and that some of the vaccines included in these orders may not even come to fruition at all. The Sanofi/GlaxoSmithKline vaccine, for example, has just announced a delay until the end of 2021, as its product has not demonstrated a sufficiently strong immune response in older people. 

But we have ordered 76 million of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines alone (already approved, or as good as), which on their own would be enough to vaccinate the whole Canadian population, even assuming that everyone could be persuaded to receive a vaccination (not going to happen). So, do we really, then, need an additional 72 million from Sanofi/GlaxoSmithKline, 38 million from Johnson & Johnson, 76 million from Novavax, 20 million from AstraZeneca, and 76 million from Medicago? Canada is far from the only rich country to over-order, but we seem to have gone way further over the top than any other country.

I understand the need to "hedge our bets" and over-purchase a bit as an "insurance policy", especially as they were ordered at a time when the successful completion and rollout of the various vaccine candidates was far from certain, but this seems excessive. It is also in spite of the fact that Canada has signed up for, and pledged $440 million towards, the COVAX vaccine access facility, which is designed to ensure an equitable worldwide rollout of the much-needed vaccines. However, this is only expected to cover around 20% of the developing world's needs, and only three or four vaccine producers are involved (and, notably, not the front-runner mRNA-type vaccines).

Meanwhile, poorer countries, particularly those in Africa, worry that they may not be able to obtain enough vaccine as a result of this "hoarding" by wealthy countries. There are concerns that virus could become endemic across Africa and other parts of the developing world.

A scheme, similar to one established in the 2001 Doha Declaration for the AIDS vaccine, to waive intellectual property rules to allow developing countries to produce their own supplies of the vaccines, instigated by South Africa and India and supported by over 100 countries, has been effectively blocked by a group of wealthy countries including the EU, UK, USA, Switzerland, Japan, Brazil and, yes, Canada. 

This is not a good look on Canada.

Brexit - a Canada-style deal, Australia-style, no deal at all?

As Brexit - yes Brexit! that thing is still going on! - grinds to a tired and unimpressive conclusion, and the 31st December final deadline (final! final!) looms, Brexiter-in-chief Boris Johnson's messaging has gradually changed. No longer is there talk of an all-encompassing deal with Europe, no talk of a Switzerland-style free trade deal with the EU, or a Norway-style deal. Gone even is the more limited (but technically "comprehensive") Canada-style deal. Now, he is talking up an Australia-style deal.

Which means what, exactly? Well, very little, really. Australia doesn't have a free trade deal with the the EU (it has been in negotiations for a couple of years now to establish one), and basically trades with it under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, subject to tariffs the same as everyone else. Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull says, "Be careful what you wish for. Australia's relationship with the EU is not one, from a trade point of view, that Britain would want".

I guess an "Australia-style deal" just sounds better than "no deal". But, make no mistake, that's what it is.