think-180

Is Canada Really in a Recession?

Sat, 23 Dec 2023 20:45:00 GMT

Context

A CBC News article discussed the possibility of the Canadian economy heading into a recession, or whether the country has already passed that threshold. The article discussed this possibility based on slowed growth, high inflation, and the Bank of Canada’s continued interest rate hikes.

Analysis

A recession is a significant reduction in economic activity that occurs over a length of time, usually months or years. One of the most accepted definitions of a recession comes from the economist Julius Shiskin in 1974, who identified the threshold to an economic recession as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP, although economists often argue about the comprehensiveness of this measure.

The causes of a recession can be quite complicated and have many contributing factors. Some common examples include a sudden economic shock such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic, excessive debt, asset bubbles, inflation, deflation, or large technological changes.

One major factor influencing the probability of an economic recession includes rising interest rates from the Bank of Canada, which has implemented the highest hike in the shortest amount of time in all of the bank’s history, raising the rate over eight times since 2022. The Bank of Canada increased interest rates in order to curb inflation since rising interest rates discourage taking on debt and spending. This further encourages companies to lower prices or slow inflation to increase demand.

Currently, the Bank of Canada is keeping at the 5.0 percent rate but has said that further hikes are not off the table as inflation may continue to exceed acceptable rates. Increases in interest rates can certainly contribute to or precede a recession. In fact, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates three times to slow inflation since the 1960s and all three times this action led to an economic recession.

Current fears of a looming economic depression are also not unique to Canada, as following the COVID-19 pandemic, the global inflation rate increased to 8.73 percent in 2021. This was due to supply chain issues, as well as the effect of the Russia-Ukraine War creating rising food and energy prices, as well as general fiscal instability. A majority of the World Economic Forum’s lead economists agreed earlier this year that we could see the beginning of a global recession starting in 2023, which would certainly affect the Canadian economy.

The article also discusses the Canadian economy’s slowed economic growth, as the GDP has stagnated in the second quarter of this year. However, it suggests other factors may explain the decrease, including striking port workers in British Columbia, and the resulting negative effect on economic activity. An RBC report mentions how on a per-person GDP basis, there has already been a decline for four straight quarters despite a surge in population growth, and concludes overall predictions for GDP growth do not look promising despite local factors including Canadian wildfires and strikes. They also point to a 0.5 percent increase in the unemployment rate over the past few months, which has historically tended to indicate a looming recession.

Ottawa Mayor and Lansdowne Park

Thu, 21 Dec 2023 20:45:00 GMT

Context

The City of Ottawa Mayor, Mark Sutcliff released a statement about a revised plan for the redevelopment of Lansdowne, an urban public park containing historic landmarks and commercial venues. The project includes the demolition of a sports arena complex, stadium stands, and the building of a new event center, residential units, and retail space. Despite suggesting the new plan has addressed the concerns of residents, many issues remain.

Analysis

The City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG) have been in partnership to develop Lansdowne since 2012 and finished an original redevelopment of the park back in 2014. A few years later in 2019, the financial sustainability of the park came to the city council’s attention, and in 2020 the partnership was extended another 10 years with direction to develop a new plan to revitalize Lansdowne. Consultation with community members started in 2020, with the original concept released last year in 2022, and a revised version released this month.

Community feedback was acquired through various platforms including public information sessions, an open email for feedback, and public surveys. A summary report of that feedback was published on October 6th, which highlighted the six most common themes of community residents’ concerns. The first concern was related to the size and number of the multiple high-rise apartments which were designed to exceed 30 floors. In the new plan , they have removed one of the three planned buildings, with fewer total units in each, and only one tower with the potential to be built at 40 stories.

Residents were also concerned about the loss of greenspace due to the new event center construction. Many people suggested they wanted that greenspace allocated elsewhere, or alternatively, an accessible greenspace roof on the event center. Although in the original plan the city had conceptualized a greenspace rooftop on the event center, this was scrapped in the new plan as it was deemed too expensive to maintain.

Respondents wanted a restriction of vehicles to the premises to promote pedestrian safety, a concern that has existed since Lansdowne was first renovated back in 2014. They also wanted more public transportation infrastructure to and from the park, whether that is the local city buses, trains, or cycling infrastructure to reduce congestion on connecting roads. Relatedly, residents also desired more accessible public use space from washrooms to water fountains to usable and free space for people to occupy. The new plan has reduced the number of parking spaces for the residential buildings to meet the Bylaw limit of 0.4 spaces per unit, down from 739 to 336 spaces, while they added 36 new spaces for the event center. In terms of accessible public space, the new plan includes 27,000 square feet of space originally earmarked for the third residential building, now available for an unspecified “public realm.”

Residents also wanted more local and less corporate or big-box businesses, to reflect the unique local community better. The new plan does suggest the amount of retail space has been reduced from 108,000 square feet to 49,000 square feet but does not directly address the desire to attract smaller, local businesses.

Finally, there was also a concern about financial transparency of how the project is being funded and the resulting impact on the City. The Federation of Citizens Association (FCA) which represents over 70 community groups voted unanimously to oppose the new plan, which comes with a very costly price tag of $419 million, increased from $332 million of the first plan. They cite that the debt comes at a time when the transit system is facing major issues, and the city is struggling with a housing affordability crisis.

Danielle Smith - Conflict of Interest

Wed, 20 Dec 2023 20:39:31 GMT

Context

Newly elected Premier of Alberta Danielle Smith has defended her cabinet which is coming under fire over conflict-of-interest concerns. Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz’s husband, Cole Schulz , may be lobbying the government in the areas that the Minister works in. Cole Schulz's firm is working on removing the protection of a threatened caribou range to make room for the oil and gas industry – which has raised concerns over who has Minister Schulz’s ear.

Analysis

The company that Cole Schulz is a partner with, Garrison Strategies, was hired by the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada and is working to influence the government on the issuing of reclamation certificates for oil and gas sites. The lobbyists are working to gain more access to protected caribou habitats to expand the oil and gas industry.

They are hoping to “ address the moratorium on tenure in caribou regions ” which would effectively give them better access to land and investments. The Little Smoky and A La Peche herds in northwest Alberta were protected by a moratorium in 2013 which stopped the granting of new energy leases in this area. At the time, 95 percent of the herd’s range was heavily damaged.

Phillip Meintzer of the Alberta Wilderness Association found that though records show that Garrison didn’t contact Environment and Protected Areas directly, the firm’s causes are “ too close for comfort ”. Meintzer also notes that as Garrison works on opening the protected caribou land for Alberta Energy, Environment and Protected Areas should be working on a protection plan for the federally and provincially designated threatened animal .

Minister Schulz is working closely with the ethics commissioner, however, Danielle Smith confirmed that “ the ethics commissioner has looked at it, given guidance and there’s no violation [of the Conflicts of Interest Act]”. Cole Schulz also indicated that his firm wasn’t aware that Minister Schulz breached the Act at any time. Meintzer suggests that this situation “ calls for a further look ” from a third party.

Sources

https://globalnews.ca/news/9988998/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-rebecca-schulz/

RCMP Exploiting Human Rights Loophole

Wed, 06 Dec 2023 20:30:00 GMT

Context

A CBC article reported on a claim made by a human rights lawyer who suggested that the RCMP is undermining the rights of their employees by exploiting a clause in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act is legislation intended to protect Canadians from discrimination by federally regulated service providers or employers in Canada when that discrimination occurs on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

This includes social categories such as race, religion, sex, or disability. The complaint must also occur through discriminatory practices, such as denying someone goods and services, unfair treatment in the workplace, or harassment in the workplace.

Analysis

The Human Rights Commission is responsible for administering the law, receives complaints from individuals, and assesses those complaints to see if they fall under the commission’s purview.

The Human Rights Commission states that employers should make their employees aware that they have the right to access the commission to redress their concerns if they so wish to do so. However, the Human Rights Act contains the requirement that if an internal grievance process is available in a workplace, the complainant must pursue that process first before filing with the commission. Only if the issue remains unresolved after pursuing the internal process would the commission consider their claim. They suggest : “If you have access to another process, you should try to deal with your complaint through that process …The Commission will usually require you to exhaust the other process available to you before you can return to the Commission.”

The RCMP has been in the spotlight for human rights abuses several times in the recent past. The Independent Centre for Harassment Resolution (ICHR) was developed by the Liberal government for complainants of the RCMP in 2021, after a sexual assault scandal that resulted in a class action lawsuit and $125 million paid out to over 2000 women who faced sexual assault or harassment on the job. This was only one of several class-action lawsuits related to sexual harassment and assault that have been filed against the organization. Another issue with the ICHR is that critics claim it is not entirely independent from the RCMP since it reports back to the RCMP after it does its investigation.

Another compounding issue is that the ICHR has had longstanding issues with meeting resolution timelines since its creation two years ago. The ICHR aims to complete grievance processes within a year of initiation but has been consistently over-logged with complaints. The Human Rights Act requires that the accusations of sexual harassment happen promptly . The RCMP was considering using internal investigators to handle the backlog of complaints once it started to be overwhelmed. This was criticized by the RCMP union since the point of having an independent organization is to have external independent investigations. Given the lengthy internal review process that is available for officers who wish to file a complaint, it is unclear whether the organization meets the requirement for a prompt resolution.

New York City Airbnb Ban

Tue, 05 Dec 2023 20:19:09 GMT

Context

An article by the Guardian reported a new Airbnb ban in the city of New York, significantly restricting the company’s activities and potentially setting a precedent for other cities to follow.

New York’s Local Law 18 , the Short-term Rental Registration Law, started implementation in September of this year. The law is intended to force short-term rental companies like Airbnb to only process transactions for buildings that are registered with the city government and ensure that those transactions have been checked through the city’s verification system.

Critically, only the primary dwelling of the host can be rented out, there can only be a max of two guests at a time, and the host must be present while the unit is being rented out.

Analysis

It does certainly seem like this is a de-facto ban for Airbnb, as the majority of Airbnb rentals in New York are full homes that have been purposed for Airbnb rentals. Although Airbnb started as a model for individuals to make extra cash renting out their apartments or homes while they are on vacation, many listings now are run by large property managers. In New York, over 55 percent of listings are entire homes or apartments, and 49 percent of listings were offered by hosts with multiple listings.

Similar laws have been implemented in some Canadian cities. Quebec is one Canadian province which has taken steps to restrict Airbnb by requiring licenses for short-term rental units. However, while it was already illegal to rent out short-term units without a license from the municipality, Airbnb did not vet any of the units through their platform.

In early 2023, a fire broke out in old Quebec City in a heritage house within which several units were being rented illegally as Airbnb’s. The fire killed seven people, prompting Airbnb to commit to vetting transactions. Approximately half of all Airbnb listings were removed from the site that did not have a registration number, however, some hosts attempted to circumvent that process by entering false numbers. Airbnb, when questioned about the continued illegal activity, suggested it is not their responsibility to enforce the province’s law.

The article suggests that there is an increasing opinion that the growth of Airbnb is a contributing factor to the inflation of rental prices across the globe. This point does seem to be supported by research. For example, a Harvard Business Review study found that the development of Airbnb in America contributes to about one-fifth of the growth in average rental prices. They suggest that this is partially due to the profitability of short-term rentals that can incentivize owners to take potential long-term rentals off the market. Over time, this can drive up prices of rentals as the market shrinks.

In Canada, the financialization of housing does also seem to contribute to the housing crisis. According to Statistics Canada, the share of short-term rental units is growing . Short-term rentals make up 15.2 percent of the total revenue generated from the Canadian accommodation services market, more than doubled from 7 percent in 2017. A study done on Airbnb rentals in Canada also found that more than 50 percent of all revenue was acquired by businesses with multiple listings. If countries do recognize short-term rentals as a significant factor in addressing the housing crisis, restricting Airbnb’s activities could become a viable legislative option.

Another way that Airbnb is upsetting some rental markets is by acting as a “shadow market” for longer-term rentals. Instead of signing a standard lease, tenants are signing a legal agreement written by the Airbnb company, for rental agreements longer than 30 days. Toronto , for example, initiated legislation in 2021 that restricted the use of short-term rentals in the city offered for 28 days or less to the host’s primary residence only. Since the implementation of the new law, more than 75 percent of Airbnb’s shifted to monthly rentals of over 28 days. It is uncertain if a similar shift in focus will happen in New York as Airbnb tries to survive.

Quebec Language Laws

Wed, 29 Nov 2023 19:15:00 GMT

Context

The Montreal Gazette has reported on a story about a young woman who was denied service in English for a driving exam at an SAAQ (Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec) in Quebec. The SAAQ employee cited Bill 96 as requiring them to service her in French, despite the woman’s claims of eligibility for service in English.

Analysis

Quebec’s Bill 96 requires all communications by civil servants to be in French, given some noted exceptions. The bill also restricts enrolment into English schools and restricts the use of English in the legal system. Newer immigrants are also required to be able to speak French to their service providers within six months of locating to Quebec, lest they lose access to those services. This law is largely unprecedented as most laws have focused on French language rights, where this law works to prevent people from speaking English in interactions with government institutions - even if those public servants can speak English.

A history of systemic discrimination in Canada towards French Canadians has characterized Franco-Canadian politics up to this day. For example, French Canadians in the 19th and 20th centuries were discriminated against in the workplace, receiving lower wages than their English coworkers. In some provinces, French was banned in schools, and systemic underfunding of French Catholic schools made it harder for French Canadians to get a good education.

Quebec language laws are also shaped by the importance of the French language to the sense of French-Canadian identity. A recent study found that 91 percent of French Canadians viewed their language as a strong central component of their identity, over their sense of belonging to Canada, and for those living in Quebec, stronger than the attachment to their province.

The rationale for the passing of Bill 96 was the perception that the French language is under threat by the growing use of English in Quebec. The proportion of people who speak French at home predominantly has decreased since the 90s, however , the real number (total number) of those households has risen. The number of people who speak both English and French has also been increasing in Quebec as well.

The article reported that the minister of language Jean-François Roberge assured English-speaking Quebecers that those with “acquired rights” (those eligible for English school) would not face any barriers in demonstrating they require services in English. There are, however, many more English speakers in Quebec who do not have a schooling certificate and who would not fall under this exception. He also suggested that civil servants would accept self-identification of English speakers and not request any proof of qualification. Other exceptions include Indigenous and Inuit people, landed immigrants for a grace period of six months, and those living outside of the province.

The way the bill would be implemented relies on the new state language policy which outlines that “…the administration must never systematically make use of another language. Institutional bilingualism is incompatible with the Charter of the French Language.” Critics have pointed to issues with the vagueness of the law, and the seeming contradiction of mandating mono-linguicism while also attempting to ensure the rights of English speakers who have their roots in Quebec.

In the case of the young woman who was denied English service despite attesting to eligibility, the civil servants likely overstepped their authority. It is unclear, however, whether the government will continue to accept self-identification in the future as this is not ensured by legislation and has only been communicated by the language minister.

Safe Smoking Sites

Tue, 28 Nov 2023 19:00:41 GMT

Context

A CBC News article reported that the majority of drug users in Canada who are dying from overdose are inhaling their drugs as opposed to injection. They quote advocates who claim that safe injection sites have worked, and who suggest that model should be expanded to include users who inhale. Opponents instead insist that there should be a focus on getting drug users access to treatment.

Analysis

There is a lot of evidence that safe injection sites work to prevent drug use harm. Safe injection sites have been implemented in Europe, Canada, and Australia with significant results in reducing mortality . It is reasonable to suggest expanding the safe injection site model to accommodate users who inhale their drugs could prevent further deaths, especially since the majority of drug users in several Canadian provinces now primarily smoke their drugs.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has mandated Dan Williams, the minister of mental health and addiction to implement a future “compassionate intervention” legislation, which would allow family members or social workers to petition a Judge to send a user to treatment without their consent. She also instructed him to help deliver platform commitments including: “Building and operationalizing at least 11 new recovery communities in key locations throughout the province…”

In the above article, Dan Williams is quoted as saying that he has no plans to focus on safe injection sites or to consider safe inhalation sites but instead on access to treatment and what he called “recovery communities”. According to the Albertan government, recovery or therapeutic communities are “a form of long-term residential addiction treatment that focuses on the whole person and overall lifestyle changes.” This strategy is focused on access to recovery programs of sobriety and does not consider mitigating overdose deaths directly.

The UCP government has also been closing safe injection sites around the province of Alberta. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has suggested in the past that safe injection sites promote drug use and increase crime, and so work against efforts to get people into treatment.

However, there has been no relationship to increased crime found when safe injection sites are implemented in communities. There is also no evidence from studies that have shown an increase in drug use after implementing safe injection sites. There is also no evidence that they discourage drug use, although that’s not their intent. Harm reduction methods including safe injection sites aim not to address the issue of addiction per se, but to mitigate risks associated with drug use such as the risk of death from overdose, leaving strategies for treatment and prevention as separate issues. However, there is also evidence that providing safe injection sites leads to increased engagement with existing treatment programs.

Liberal Government's Planned Changes to the Competition Act

Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:00:00 GMT

Context

The National Post reported on the Liberal Government’s announcement of changes that are coming for the Competition Act, in order to address the affordability crisis in Canada. The proposed amendments would enable the Competition Bureau to assess market conditions more accurately by collecting information from private companies to run studies.

Analysis

The Competition Bureau is a federally regulated law enforcement agency that is tasked with the enforcement of the Competition Act , a set of laws regulating competition within the Canadian market. The Competition Act specifically aims to ensure that small and medium businesses have a fair shot at operating in Canada and that consumers can access services and goods at competitive prices. The Act attempts to regulate monopolization and to prevent large mergers which may exert a significant influence over a particular market.

Currently, the Bureau relies on those private companies willing to cooperate and offer information to them. The second amendment would remove an “efficiencies defense”, which would allow certain mergers to proceed despite a measured negative effect on competition in the market, the loss of jobs, or consumer choice – if they can demonstrate that the merger would result in cheaper goods and services. However, there is no requirement that those hypothetical efficiencies will be passed to the consumer at cheaper prices.

The five biggest grocery chains in Canada make up about 76 percent of the entire grocery market. The Competition Bureau conducted a report published in June of this year in which they noted that in 2022, Loblaws, Sobeys, and Metro raked in $100 billion in sales and earned more than $3.6 billion in profit. The report noted that their high-profit margin is an indication that more competition in the market could be successful in driving down costs.

Some of those prominent grocery CEOs were called to the House of Commons early this year and questioned about their inflated grocery prices, which they suggested was partially due to higher supply costs . However, the report contradicts this claim by noting grocery profit margins have been increasing since 2017, despite the Covid-19 crisis and various issues with supply related to the war in Ukraine.

The report recommended Canada develop a strategy to encourage smaller grocery stores to capture some of that market and drive prices down, and noted it is becoming increasingly harder in Canada for smaller grocery companies as the larger grocery chains have been gaining more market share over time.

The article quotes some critics who claim that amending the Competition Act is not substantial enough to address the affordability of groceries. Enabling the Competition Bureau more oversight in addressing competition is likely a good move to combat the issue of monopolization, although it is unclear how this will address the affordability crisis anytime soon. Creating a more favorable market for smaller groceries to promote lower prices also seems like a long-term strategy.

Trudeau has however, also requested that the heads of some of the largest grocery chains including Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Costco, and Walmart, create a plan to lower food prices by Thanksgiving this year or face possible consequences – including future taxes if their plan doesn’t result in significant savings. Although the threat of taxation might be more likely to impact prices, it is unclear what measures the government is actually willing to impose on the grocery giants, or to what degree Canadians could see their grocery bills decrease.

Manitoba Healthcare

Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:35:12 GMT

Claim

“Heather Stefanson and the PCs cut hospital beds, fired 300 nurses, and closed three emergency rooms in Winnipeg,” said Uzoma Asagwara, NDP Health critic at a press conference at the Manitoba Legislature. “Because of her cuts, our hospitals are overflowing and if Heather Stefanson is re-elected, we know she will cut healthcare again. The people who broke our healthcare system can’t be trusted to fix it.” However, a spokesperson for Shared Health – which provided the information quoted – said the NDP are misinterpreting the numbers .

Context

The ongoing healthcare system challenges in Manitoba have come to light with a provincial election looming. The current PC government is being challenged by the provincial NDP party with staggering statistics that show just how critical the bed occupancy rates are, on top of the issues of staffing and the number of emergency departments in the province. The PC party was noted to have shut down emergency rooms, cut hospital beds, and fired 300 nurses – which the NDPs expressed will continue to happen if the PC government is re-elected.

Analysis

The Health Sciences Centre (HSC) Winnipeg has reached critical bed occupancy rates at 107.7 percent in critical care and 103.8 percent in medicine wards in Spring 2023. It’s recommended by medical experts to have occupancy rates of 85 percent. These statistics are only based on the number of licensed beds, which is “ lower than the actual number of beds that are staffed and open ”. The critical care beds, for example, total 104 across the province and have had midnight census patients ranging from the high 70s to mid-90s from December 2022 to May 2023.

To combat the worsening healthcare crisis in Manitoba, the NDP has pledged to invest $500 million in recruitment and retention – on top of building three new emergency departments in Manitoba and a new emergency room in Eriksdale. This counters the PC government downgrading emergency departments at the Victoria Seven Oaks and Concordia hospitals in 2017. The NDP investment should also add 300 nurses back into the system, in addition to 400 physicians and other healthcare workers.

The PC party says that the NDP voted against their $400 million plan to train and recruit 2,000 healthcare professionals – but staffing is only one issue that’s accelerating the healthcare crisis. The need for beds is critical to alleviating the stress from the medicine and critical care wards in the emergency departments. On top of that, additional emergency rooms would provide more intensive care units .

Healthcare is being strained across the country, with labour shortages being a pinch point. Bed shortages and occupancy levels are also major stressors. In Ontario, half of the intensive care units were at capacity or had one or two beds available in 2021. Similar to Manitoba, the Ontario PC government cut funding and 1,100 beds in 2017. Based on comparisons with other developed countries, Canada ranks 25th when it comes to acute care bed availability but ranks 2nd in healthcare spending as a percent of GDP.

Sources

EU Digital Services Act

Sat, 18 Nov 2023 21:00:00 GMT

Context

Thierry Breton is the EU’s Digital Commissioner, responsible for enforcing the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). The DSA regulates private organizations which provide platforms and hosting services for online content. They also focus on what they call VLOPs or Very Large Online Platforms, due to their relative influence and number of users. The stated purpose of the bill was to attempt to curb the presence of illegal content online. Examples of illegal content include terrorism, child sexual abuse, and hate speech. The bill also includes measures to mitigate against manipulative online design, disinformation, and election manipulation. They also require VLOPs to submit themselves to audits and to conduct risk assessments and subsequent measures to mitigate those risks.

Analysis

The Act does not define what content is illegal and instead defers to existing laws either at the EU or a local government level. Similarly, the Act does not define what ‘misinformation’ is and suggests it works in tandem with the Code of Practice on Disinformation, which was voluntarily signed by major platforms such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and TikTok in which they agreed to self-regulate.

The DSA is one piece in a larger regulatory scheme that is transferring the responsibility of determining what content should be permitted online from private tech companies to government bodies.

If illegal content such as sexually violent material is accessible on online platforms, it may make sense to ensure that those platforms are moderating that content to create a safer environment for its users. Similarly, if there is information that is falsifiable (disinformation), it could also be argued that creating a safe and healthy online environment could include a process to check that false information.

Sources

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_20_2348

https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1673310128865439754

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/2022-strengthened-code-practice-disinformation

Ottawa Cyclists

Fri, 17 Nov 2023 20:58:13 GMT

Context

The Queen Elizabeth Driveway (QED) is a federal road in the City of Ottawa, which is regulated by the National Capital Commission (NCC). The QED has been closed to vehicles for their Active Use Program since 2020, from May to October on weekends, and 7 days a week during peak summer months July to September. Ottawa City Mayor Mark Sutcliffe has made several comments about how he believes the QED isn’t being utilized to the capacity that justifies its closure to cars.

Analysis

The Mayor of Ottawa Mark Sutcliff claims that there are not enough people using the QED, based on numbers posted in his above tweet. It is suggested that there are fewer cyclists in July 2023 using the roadway, than cars were using it the same month of 2019. It also suggests there are fewer cyclists, in general, using the pathway and roadway than there were when the road was open to vehicles.

Although Sutcliff has not sourced his numbers directly, they are likely pulled from this City of Ottawa study he has cited in the past, in which it is also claimed that traffic has increased on alternative roadways since the QED’s closure. However, it is worth noting the NCC responded to the City of Ottawa with concerns that the study has methodological errors and miscalculations. The NCC suggests it is conducting its own surveys and public consultations for this season and is welcoming cooperation from the City of Ottawa.

The NCC’s decision to incorporate the QED in its Active Use Program is aligned with the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan recommendations, which asked the NCC to “re-imagine Queen Elizabeth Driveway and Colonel By Drive to reduce the roads’ importance as a commuter route in favour of pedestrian activity and greenspace connections with consideration of Canal crossings. This may include limiting vehicular access and reducing traffic speed.”

In the absence of corroborating data, whether the QED is putting unnecessary pressure on alternative roadways is unclear. To determine whether people have been using the roadway to a sufficient extent, depends on how you decide to measure the success of the program. The NCC released a report for the 2021-2022 season which suggested that 95 percent of Ottawa residents surveyed were in support of the QED program continuing. They also reported a 10 percent increase in use from the year 2020, with 750,000 people using the pathway in the 2021 season.

Is Big Pharma Improving Canadian Healthcare?

Thu, 16 Nov 2023 17:15:01 GMT

Context

A National Post article reported on a new drug, Harvoni, intended for the treatment of Hepatitis C, and its additional downstream medical benefits. The article argues that pharmaceutical companies do not receive the proportional value of their medicines when overall savings to the health care system are considered.

Analysis

Harvoni is a genotype 1 Hepatitis C medication with a cure rate of 94 to 99 percent of cases. Hepatitis C causes inflammation in the liver and around 50 percent of Hep C cases become chronic, increasing the chance of incurring significant damage to the liver. One of the most common reasons for a liver transplant historically has been because of liver damage from chronic Hep C. However, there has been a huge shift in those numbers, from 44.5 percent of all liver transplants in 2010 to only 18.7 percent in 2019. One study attributes this decrease to highly effective antiviral medication, as well as increased screening.

Some research also suggests that because of the effectiveness of DAA (direct-acting antiviral) medications such as Harvoni, waitlists for liver transplants caused by a variety of conditions are being significantly shortened as surgeons can transplant a Hep C infected liver into someone who does not have the infection and cure them of the disease post-transplant. So, in addition to fewer people needing liver transplants from chronic Hep C, overall wait times are further reduced as infected liver transplants do not need to be restricted to those who already happen to have the disease.

The effectiveness of Hep C medications has caused great downstream medical benefits for patients and healthcare systems around the world.

However, the article seems to suggest that Harvoni is a breakthrough innovation coming from the labs of the pharmaceutical company Gilead. Harvoni was not the first DAA to be put on the market. A medication by Bristol–Myers Squibb was the first to be approved in the world in Japan with a cure rate of 91 percent . Although drugs like Harvoni have made improvements in their effectiveness, it was not the first and it is not the only medicine available to cure Hep C. The first-generation DAAs that were made in 2011, Telaprevir and Boceprevir , provided improvement in treatment but with low cure rates and challenging side effects.

One issue is that medicines build on past knowledge and innovation, making it difficult to attribute the benefits of a certain medication to just the producers of that drug. Harvoni itself is not the sole product of the pharmaceutical company Gilead. Harvoni is a combination medicine of two existing medicines Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir. Sofosbuvir was developed by a scientist named Michael Sofia at a development company called Pharmasset. It wasn’t until 2013 that the company was bought by Gilead Sciences. In addition, Sofia could not have developed that medication without the groundwork science on the Hep C virus done in the 1990s by two scientists who conducted their research at public universities.

If the argument is being made that pharmaceutical companies’ medications are not high enough to appropriately capture the overall value of their medicines, exactly what proportion of value they have contributed to the medicinal technology should be demonstrated. This also comes at a time when high-cost drugs are putting enormous strain on global healthcare systems.

Immigration and Housing

Wed, 15 Nov 2023 20:00:00 GMT

Context

A video by True North News discusses Canadian immigration policy in the context of the housing affordability crisis. A True North commentator called the Canadian Government’s 2025 immigration target of 500,000 a year “exorbitantly high”. The commentator also suggested that Canada’s immigration policies have failed across the board.

Analysis

It is true that, according to the Canadian Government , Canada accepted 405,000 new immigrants in 2021, the most the country has ever accepted. However, 2021 was also the year after the pandemic, which saw a large restriction in the number of immigrants and a subsequent decrease in population growth which triggered a desire for higher targets over the next few years. Before the pandemic, Canada was accepting 341,000 new immigrants. If Canada accepts 500,000 new immigrants in 2025, it will have increased the population by 1.2 percent.

The Government also reports that over 60 percent of those immigrants would come from the immigration program’s economic class . These are immigrants who are selected based on a set of skills or educational credentials that have changed over time depending on labour market needs. The government reports they are currently targeting immigrants from sectors facing labour shortages including healthcare and building trades. A further 30 percent of immigrants are accepted as family members of existing residents, and the remaining 10 percent are refugees. Compared to the 1980s , refugees made up 20 percent of total immigrants, twice as much as today. Canada also accepts 20 percent more economic immigrants than in the 1980s.

Historically, immigration has been critical in supporting population and labour force growth. In Canada, immigration levels have accounted for just under 100 percent of labour force growth, and this is projected to rise to 100 percent by 2032. Canada also has a rapidly ageing population and low birth rates which put increasing pressure on sustaining economic growth. The worker-to-retiree ratio is steadily decreasing from 7:1 50 years ago, to 2:1 by 2035. Immigrants also make up a huge portion of many different industries, including 36 percent of people working in the food and beverage industries and over 20 percent of construction jobs.

The video also suggests Canada does not have an issue with a shortage of workers and points to statistics that show a 0.1 point increase in unemployment numbers over the past couple of months prior to July this year. However, this short-term increase does not tell us much about the overall trend of labour shortages. Newer data suggests it has bounced back after July and decreased about the same amount. A more relevant indication of employment trends is the national historical average of 7.57 percent unemployment, compared to our current rate of 5.5 percent, clearly indicating a squeeze in the labour force.

Ontario Greenbelt

Tue, 14 Nov 2023 19:56:55 GMT

Claim

The Ontario government's sudden reversal on opening up parts of the Greenbelt for development could now put it and taxpayers in legal jeopardy for potential damages , some legal experts say.

Context

In August, Doug Ford's Conservative provincial government came under fire after allegations of corruption and preretinal treatment of developers for the Greenbelt housing development. The auditor general and the province integrity commissioner revealed that the project had major flaws after the public outcry. The Premier has now revealed that his government is walking back the decision to remove 2,995 hectares of the Greenbelt’s protected land for housing development. The RCMP formally launched a criminal investigation into the matter, with the potential for civil liability.

Analysis

The protected land of the Greenbelt was projected to be valued at $8.3 billion after the initial Greenbelt opening announcement in November 2022. However, Ford claimed that “ it was a mistake to open up development in environmentally protected zones ”, which only came weeks after the allegations of corruption and the resignation of two cabinet ministers.

Some legal experts have spoken out about the potential for civil liability for the decisions the government has made about land use. Developers who own the land are now being forced to put it back under protection , which effectively prohibits them from building. Now these developers may be able to sue the government as a way to recoup a portion of spent costs for housing development plans and infrastructure.

Housing Minister Paul Calandra has exclaimed that new legislation will “ include a provision to prevent developers from seeking compensation ”. The province is arguing that no zoning has been changed despite the land being removed from the Greenbelt. The government may also rely on the fact that not much has been developed on the land yet as a justification for not paying.

However, developers may still have a case according to experts if they can make the argument of tort of negligent misrepresentation. This essentially means they must prove that developers and the province have a “special relationship”. Additionally, developers can argue the decision was made in bad faith, in that the removal of land wasn’t made on the “ basis of public interest, public policy or good land use planning ”.

The original Greenbelt development project was set to add 50,000 homes to Ontario starting in 2025. The land within the Greenbelt was “ needed ” to meet the housing crisis demands as affordability, even though land availability wasn’t found to be a housing supply constraint. However, things remain uncertain in housing development as the province vows to work with developers and municipalities to meet the remaining housing development targets .

Sources

https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/second-doug-ford-cabinet-minister-resigns-over-greenbelt-controversy/article_528bba22-8818-5341-8651-09fcf4bb0f07.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-premier-doug-ford-says-greenbelt-lands-wont-be-developed-after/

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/no-one-had-preferential-treatment-ontario-premier-doug-ford-says-of-greenbelt-developers-1.6514923

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-greenbelt-legal-trouble-1.6991976

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/d-ends-greenbelt-development

Are Paper Straws Just as Bad for the Environment?

Wed, 08 Nov 2023 19:45:00 GMT

Context

A National Post article has criticized the Liberal Government’s plan to ban plastic straws, in favor of promoting alternative materials such as paper. They suggest that in fact, paper straws may be just as bad for the environment as plastic.

Analysis

As of December 2022, Canada has implemented a ban on single-use plastics . These regulations are a step towards a broader goal of the Liberal government to reach net zero plastic waste by 2030. The Canadian government has also recently categorized plastic as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

The article cites a study that tested various brands of plastic and paper straws for traces of toxic chemicals called PFAS or “forever chemicals”. These chemicals have been linked to a variety of conditions such as thyroid issues and liver disease in humans. PFASs also negatively affect the environment, as they do not break down easily and can build up inside mammals and fish, potentially affecting their growth and reproduction.

According to the study, PFASs were found in high levels in paper straw brands they tested, likely coming from the water-repellant chemical coating on the inside of the straws. PFASs may have also made their way into straws that were composed of recycled materials that were already carrying them. A notable exception was reusable straws made from stainless steel, which contained no traces of harmful chemicals. They also examined several brands of plastic straws and found three out of four brands also contained PFAS chemicals, although at much lower levels than most of the paper brands they examined.

The article is right to point out that pushing paper straws as an environmentally friendly alternative is likely the wrong direction, given the potential for environmental harm. The government of Canada has suggested that paper straws are a viable alternative , pointing positively at how many fast food chains have successfully adopted paper straws in advance of the ban.

The presence of PFASs also challenges paper straws branding as biodegradable. Often called “ Greenwashing ”, products are marketed as environmentally friendly in hopes of capturing a portion of that market, but aren’t actually better for the environment. As one example, Coca-Cola released a ‘Plant Bottle’, claiming it was made from bio-based materials instead of petrochemicals. The final product however was chemically identical to a plastic bottle, and so faced the same disposal issues.

The article also claims plastic straws make up a very small portion of the plastic pollution in the ocean, concluding that the ban on straws won’t contribute much as a solution. Indeed, plastic straws themselves don’t make up a huge proportion of the waste in the ocean, only making up about 2.3 percent, which also includes plastic stirrers.

The article is also right to point out that fishing waste makes up a big proportion of the plastic in the ocean, but this is only the case for open ocean waters. Overall, the vast majority of plastic pollution in the entire ocean ecosystem is made up of single-use plastic products, of which straws are a small but measurable part of the problem.

Ontario Teacher's Union

Tue, 07 Nov 2023 20:45:00 GMT

Context

Stephan Lecce, Minister of Education in Ontario, indicated that the four major Ontario teachers’ unions are “ unfairly ” threatening to strike in response to ongoing contract negotiations. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO), who represents 83,000 public school teachers and staff, expressed that they’ve been without an agreement for over one year – which gives them a “ strong strike mandate ” to ensure “ fair and favourable terms ”. Lecce claims a strike would be unfair to parents and students as the new school year is swiftly approaching.

Analysis

Most teachers around Ontario are frustrated by the terms that the Ford government keeps bringing to the bargaining table. The union is fighting for proper compensation, hiring practices, working conditions, and smaller class sizes. The government has met over 170 times with necessary parties to resolve the contract issues – however the province is being accused of not taking negotiations seriously, as they “ refused to engage in any meaningful discussions ”.

According to ETFO , only 8 of their 17 issues were addressed at the bargaining table – on top of massive divides on issues such as class size and classroom support. Compensation is the largest bargaining point, as the union was calling for a 1 percent increase annually, in addition to a cost-of-living adjustment. The province offered a 1.25 percent increase each year over four years, totalling 5 percent.

In the previous school year, Ontario education workers participated in a multi-day strike which ended with the ratification of a new tentative deal . The strike resulted in a 3.59 percent raise for the average worker each year, which properly demonstrates how effective strikes can be in securing a fair deal for workers.

Overall, teachers themselves find it unacceptable to return to the classroom without a contract. No unions have held a strike vote in the summer months, however the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) is considering holding one in the fall if bargaining conditions don’t change.

As of January, 2022, Ontario schools had been closed for more than 27 weeks , longer than many other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world.

A 2021 survey suggested that nearly 80 percent of Ontario parents of children in K-12 schools said their child had fallen behind due to government pandemic policies and the impacts of COVID-19. Minister Lecce has pointed to missed educational days over the past 3 years due to COVID-19 restrictions and previous strike actions as reasons why students should be in class this September.

Are Climate Deaths Falling?

Mon, 06 Nov 2023 20:38:31 GMT

Context

Climate related deaths are deaths that occur due to natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes, or wildfires. According to the World Meteorological Organization, climate change has been linked to the increase in intensity and frequency of natural disasters. In the last 100 years, the frequency of natural disasters has increased by 4,514%.

Climate related deaths have decreased significantly over time, with the 2020s having 150,200 deaths, a decrease from 1.089 million deaths in the 2010s. However, the World Health Organization is predicting that due to the effects of climate change – changes in clean air, safe drinking water, access to food – between 2030 and 2050 an additional 250,000 deaths per year will occur.

Analysis

The decline in deaths from climate related deaths can be linked to improvements in living standards, more resilient infrastructure, and response systems. Additionally, improvements in incomes around the globe have contributed to fewer deaths.

However, countries with low-socio-demographic indexes (SDIs) are still disproportionately affected by natural disasters. Those who die from natural disasters are more frequently seen in developing countries such as India, Pakistan, and Kenya.

Additionally, those who are affected, but not necessarily killed, by natural disasters are increasing, including injuries, homelessness, and the need for immediate assistance. For example, the relative change in total affected people in the last 100 years has increased from 11,417 in 1922, to 107 million in 2022, (939,521% increase).

Sources

Weather Related Disasters

Who.int

Our World in Data

Is Arson to Blame for Canada's Wildfires?

Wed, 01 Nov 2023 18:24:54 GMT

Quote:

"I'm very concerned that there are arsonists," Smith said.

"And there have been stories as well, that we're investigating and we're bringing in arson investigators from outside the province."

Context

As Canada experiences a record wildfire season, speculation has grown that many of these fires were started deliberately. Alberta has brought in additional arson investigators to determine the cause of the fires, while some Provincial and Federal politicians, including Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and PPC Party Leader Maxime Bernier, have claimed that arsonists are to blame for this year’s increase in fires.

Analysis

Wildfires are typically started in two ways - lightning strikes and human activity.

Nationally, the Canadian National Forestry Database found that lightning causes about 50 percent of all fires but accounts for about 85 percent of the annual area burned. As the National Post points out, this is generally because lightning strikes occur in remote areas, where fires that don’t threaten populated areas are either allowed to burn or are difficult for firefighters to access.

The exact split varies by province. In British Columbia , for example, lightning strikes are responsible for 60 percent of wildfires, while in Alberta , human activity accounts for an average of 68 percent of all fires.

Most human activity is accidental, with fires sparking from campfires, powerlines, industrial activities, and discarded cigarettes, among other causes.

Arson, or the deliberate and intentional setting of fires, is generally rare , accounting for only 5 percent of total fires and less than 1 percent of total area burned each year. These are typically extinguished before they can grow into larger fires. Though there have been arson charges laid for arson related to wildfires, these have not historically been a significant cause of large-scale burning.

A US study, where human activity is already the cause of 84 percent of fires, found that arson was the source of 21 percent of all human-caused fires , or around 18 percent of total fires.

Bruce County Water Treatment

Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:15:00 GMT

Original Claim

In the 43-second clip , Michi is heard talking about a water treatment plant that opened in Cape Croker 25 years ago. He claims the plant was ruined because community members didn't maintain it and questions the $65 million spent to set up new hydrant and water plants.

Context

Gary Michi, now former mayor of South Bruce Peninsula, was caught on tape making racist comments towards the Chippewas of the Nawash Unceded First Nations who live in a nearby community. In the secret audio recording, Michi questions the government funding of a water treatment plan on Cape Croker 20 years ago – claiming that the plant was ruined due to neglect from community members. Many Indigenous groups called for Michi’s resignation, on top of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula immediately distancing themselves from Michi.

Analysis

Gary Michi has resigned over his “ denigrating and racist ” remarks indicating that the First Nations community let the $65 million water treatment plant become ruined on Cape Croker.

Michi said on the recording “ Just look at their home. I can understand to be poor, but you can be poor and clean ”. The comments came as Michi questioned the fiscal sense of building a water treatment plant for the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nations, even though they have been under a boil water advisory since 2018.

Chef Greg Nadijwon responded to the incident, indicating that Michi had no real knowledge of what was going on in Cape Croker, as they had managed to keep the water plant running longer than predicted. It was found that the plant had many challenges , including water leakage of 60 to 70 percent. The Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nations community and all First Nations, “ have been deprived of basic human rights, including…the need of access to clean water ”.

The bordering community of the Saugeen First Nations also responded, calling the recording “ reprehensible, denigrating, and racist ”. They also indicated that these comments aren’t an “ isolated incident ” and are a “ continuation of an historical pattern of racism ”.

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula immediately responded to Michi's position, claiming that they support federal efforts that ensure all First Nations have access to safe drinking water. The Deputy Mayor, Jay Kirkland, issued an apology to the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nations and all First Nations, from the Town of South Grey Bruce Peninsula. Work is currently underway to construct a new water treatment plant to service the community of 750 people in 264 homes after receiving funding in 2021 for $60 million .

The former mayor issued an apology after the Town, saying that his words were “ ignorant, insensitive and poorly chosen ”. Michi also said that “ there is no excuse for my behaviour ”. Michi’s position is set to be filled within 60 days.

Sources

Ontario Launches 1.2B Home Building Incentive Fund

Sat, 28 Oct 2023 16:15:00 GMT

Context

The Ontario Government announced that it is creating a substantial $1.2 Billion fund for provinces that meet set targets for home building. These targets align with the provincial goal of 1.5 million new homes in Ontario by 2031. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has also decided to distribute ‘strong mayor’ powers to municipal heads of council if they agree to their targets.

Doug Ford has suggested that these measures are necessary to address an existing housing supply shortage driven by population growth and the housing affordability crisis.

Analysis

Strong mayor powers would allow heads of council to override the usual voting process by only requiring one-third of the democratically elected council’s consent to pass motions. It also includes the ability to dismiss bylaws previously approved by council, which might impede their home building targets.

The rationale behind building more homes is in line with supply and demand logic – if prices are high now, increasing supply will drive prices down and make housing more affordable. However, in Toronto for example, home prices have gone up even though population growth hasn’t exceeded housebuilding. Over two years from 2019 to 2021, Toronto had a 1.3 percent population growth and a 3.5 percent housing stock growth, while prices have climbed. Factors aside from population growth can affect house prices, including income and larger macroeconomic factors.

There certainly is a housing shortage in Canada, although this is driven by multiple factors. For example, there are many homes purchased in Canada as investment properties that end up sitting vacant. Canada has attempted to curtail this practice by implementing the Underused Housing Tax Act in 2022. This tax is aimed at foreign investors but does not address Canadian citizens. Provinces, including Ontario, have also implemented their version of this form of tax on foreign investors.

Statistics Canada also shows that multiple-property owners own almost a third of all residential properties in Canada, and either use them for recreation, to collect rent, or as investment properties, putting pressure on less wealthy individuals looking to buy a home. A Bank of Canada study shows that the share of multiple property owners has been growing, and first-time home buyers have been decreasing over time.

One issue with incentivizing the building of new homes as a solution to the affordability crisis, is that those homes are not guaranteed to be affordable by any measure. Doug Ford’s government also implemented The More Homes Built Faster Act in late 2022, which cut developer fees typically payable to municipalities. Although this makes developing homes more profitable, some argue this reduces revenue to municipalities that need to pass those costs onto service charges or property taxes.

Doug Ford’s aggressive policies in extending strong mayor powers to heads of council, and his significant investment incentivizing home-building will likely succeed in building more homes in Ontario. However, it is unclear whether those new homes will end up being affordable or drive down average home prices across the board.

Canadian Governments Pushing Public Transit

Fri, 27 Oct 2023 16:30:00 GMT

Context

A Financial Post article argues that attempts to shift commuters in Canada’s major cities away from personal vehicles to public transit have failed, despite efforts from governments to subsidize transit services and implement policies that discourage driving.

Analysis

The article’s author points to the gas tax as a failed measure to push people towards using transit in Canadian cities. Increased gas prices have been found to have generally small and mixed effects on ridership, which supports the author’s claim that those taxes have likely not contributed to many people giving up their cars.

The author also points to subsidization having failed to increase ridership. Currently, the federal government typically provides what is called ‘capital funding’ for transit services, which support things like new infrastructure and the purchase of vehicles. Other expenses considered operational, such as the salaries of drivers, tend to be funded by the municipalities or provinces housing those transit systems, often through taxes and revenue from service charges.

There is a lot of research that suggests subsidizing transit fares tends to increase ridership, and subsequently also tends to increase the frequency of services, a phenomenon called the Mohring Effect . Subsidies can also have a positive redistributive effect , if lower-income individuals are given a targeted subsidy.

The way that a transit service is funded can also impact ridership. For example, one study found that increasing the profitability of a transit service by raising fares can end up hurting ridership, and so recommends finding outside revenue sources.

One approach that has been proven to influence ridership of public transit services is creating improvements to the state of services offered. One study looked at transit systems across North America over 14 years and found that the most significant factor influencing ridership was the quantity of services offered, calculated by the overall kilometers traveled. In general, studies have found the more comprehensive public transport is, the more people are going to use it.

The author also claims people in Canada are resisting using transit services, based on Statistics Canada data comparing the year 2016 to 2023. The article claims the total number of overall daily commutes is back to pre-pandemic levels, accounting for working from home and the effects of the pandemic, and yet ridership is down. However, the numbers show commute levels are equal to 2016 due to some commuters returning to their workplaces, combined with a growing population and higher numbers of overall employment. Ridership has decreased from about 12 to 10 percent of total commuters, however, it is important to note that ridership has been increasing slowly but steadily each year since 2020. After the pandemic , ridership went down in all major cities across Canada, and it is still uncertain what proportion they will level out at.

Finally, the author suggests that new subway lines have had little impact on commuter’s use of transit, citing the City of Ottawa’s numerous disruptive issues with the implementation of their new commuter train. However, there are many examples of successful implementations of expanded services that have resulted in increased ridership, depending of course on factors such as the quality of service. For example, Seattle implemented a new light rail system in 2016 and saw a doubling of transit users.

Cash Incentive for Homeless Population in British Columbia

Thu, 26 Oct 2023 19:15:00 GMT

Context

The UBC study cited in the article conducted three different experiments related to homelessness in British Columbia. Firstly, they gave selected homeless individuals one-time cash transfers of $7,500 and measured various outcomes over one year. Secondly, they measured the general public’s perception of homeless people’s ability to manage money. Thirdly, they measured the general public’s perception of policies advocating for cash transfers, when presented with arguments that those policies can be effective.

A National Post article has suggested that a UBC study has a flawed scientific methodology that has undermined its results.

Analysis

The National Post author argues that the study is biased since the researchers pre-screened their participants based on their likelihood of success. The researchers excluded individuals who had been homeless for more than 2 years, were substance abusers (to avoid the possibility of overdose), and those with serious mental illness. They also limited participation to those sleeping in shelters and not on the street. However, the point of the study was to compare how individuals within the same set of conditions would do with a cash transfer, relative to a control group who did not receive any money. They also explicitly cite that their findings are limited to those homeless populations who are “high functioning”, and that these results may not apply to the bottom 69 percent of the homeless population.

Another main claim of the author was that the UBC communications staff disregarded the results of the study and misrepresented the findings in their commentary article . However, the UBC article only discusses a component of the study which looked at public perceptions of how homeless people spend their money. They reported the public predicted homeless people would spend around 80 percent of their money on “temptation goods” such as tobacco and alcohol. The cash-transfer component of the UBC study showed that they did not spend more money on these goods than the control group did, contradicting public opinion on homeless people’s economic predispositions. Although they did not discuss the entire study, they didn’t misrepresent any findings.

The author also points to the fact that the study had “null results” of several different measurements including cognitive functioning. They indeed found null results for cognitive impact, which runs counter to previous studies done in developing countries which have had some positive results related to cash transfers. However, they note in the study that the cash amount of $7,500 was only 12 percent of an average yearly income in BC, while the other studies had more significant cash transfers representing more than double that relative income.

Finally, the author also suggests that the main significant finding of the study - that those given cash transfers found housing faster - could have been explained by the availability of social housing which increased during the time of the experiment. This claim is supported by the study itself, which points to this contextual factor as potentially influencing their results. They then point to the necessity of repeating similar studies to assess the significance of their results, which is a standard process in the social sciences. This is especially the case for experimental or novel studies.

The UBC study also discusses how the control group, who did not get into housing faster, eventually caught up with the cash group, since shelter clients typically exit the system within 1-3 months using existing supports. However, the benefit of cash transfers appears to be the net total savings relative to the cost of housing the homeless in traditional homeless shelters. The results indicated that homeless people given the cash transfers reduced their reliance on social supports and ended up saving the system $777 per person.

UFO Whistleblower - Alien Vehicles

Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:45:00 GMT

Context

A Skynews article reported that a former intelligence officer named David Grusch claimed in front of the United States Congress that the government has evidence of extra-terrestrial or “non-human” life recovered from alien vehicles that have crashed down to earth.

Analysis

Due to claims by whistleblowers about secretive UFO information, the House Oversight Committee decided to have a hearing to review the allegations. This follows the new National Defense and Intelligence Authorization Act, which created a secure system for reporting UFOs and encouraged whistleblowers to come forward with any information they may have.

David Grusch claimed in front of Congress at the hearing that he was involved in efforts to analyze sightings of UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) vehicles. For context, the US space agency started referring to UFOs as UAPs to avoid connotations found in popular culture. Definitionally, a UAP is not extra-terrestrial but is an object that cannot or hasn’t yet been identified. Grusch claims he also became aware of another secretive program that was working on reconstructing damaged UAP vehicles that had fallen to earth.

The Pentagon denied knowledge about Grusch’s claims and denied the existence of any secret programs. The US government certainly can and has in the past created secret agencies devoted to monitoring UAPs. For example, in 2017 the public became aware of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which was kept deliberately secret since its founding in 2007, and was tasked with tracking UAP sightings. The Pentagon claimed it was defunded in 2012, although former employees suggested they continued their work informally beyond that date. Then in 2020, the Pentagon announced the formation of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, which monitors UAPs that could pose a national security threat. In 2022, this changed to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. This new office identified the issue of a lack of comprehensive data and tracking in correctly identifying UAPs.

The Pentagon also pointed to the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial spacecraft in any investigations that had been done by the government. A report released in June 2022 from the National Intelligence Office suggested that there were incidents of UAPs that “appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities,” and which were not able to be identified. However, they also suggested there was no positive evidence that any of these unidentified objects were extraterrestrial in origin.

A potential issue with Grusch’s claims is that he is technically barred from disclosing anything secret or classified. When Grusch was pressed on details he suggested , “As a former intelligence officer, I go to jail for revealing classified information.” It might be reasonable to assume he would have been similarly barred from disclosing information about the program he claimed was working to reverse-engineer alien spacecraft. It is possible then, that the US government doesn’t have any conclusive evidence of spacecraft or non-human biological materials, and that Grusch is mistaken.

Tax Cuts and the Housing Market: Ottawa

Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:37:46 GMT

Context

An article by the Globe and Mail discusses the new Liberal tax cut initiative for developers and its effects on Canada’s housing crisis. Developers and builders suggest it will lead to increased construction of purpose-built rental units.

Analysis

The Enhanced GST Rental Rebate applies to rental unit buildings that have initiated construction by 2030 and are finished by 2035. The GST tax rebate is increased from 36 percent to 100 percent, applying to the total estimated value of the housing unit built. For example, the tax rebate would create $25,000 in savings on a building valued at $500,000.

Specifically, the rebate applies to purpose-built housing that is made up of at least 90 percent rental units suited for long-term rental, with at least four apartment units or ten private rooms intended for students, seniors, or those with disabilities. Purpose-built housing is intended to meet a social demand for rental units, as opposed to construction based on profitability or market considerations alone. The tax would also apply to converted buildings that meet the same standards but will not apply to existing rental units under renovation to prevent the occurrence of renovictions.

The construction of purpose-built housing has decreased steadily since the 1990s as investment from the government in affordable or social housing declined . Since then, developers have increasingly pursued building condos, which tend to give more profitable returns. Additionally, extracting profits from rents takes more time than seeing an immediate return of profit through a condo sale.

Some residential building companies were cited in the article saying they have had to pause construction of rental units due to profitability issues, and that the tax break will help them continue projects previously put on hold. The construction companies cited high material costs as well as interest rates as reasons for the delay. The cost of building new homes has certainly risen due to rising costs of labour and materials. As the article notes, the overall expenses for developers have risen 55 percent since the onset of the pandemic due to both material costs and higher labour costs due to a shortage of construction workers.

A report conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) largely supports developers' claims. They found that across Canada, market rents (average rents in an area) are not sufficient to cover the costs of developing those units in most markets. They pointed to the cost of land, fees incurred from government bodies, and underground parking construction as the most significant factors in making purpose-built housing an unprofitable venture.

End Book Banning at Peel Public Schools

Fri, 20 Oct 2023 18:00:01 GMT

Context

An article published in the Toronto Sun details how one school in the Peel region has been accused of throwing out half of its entire library, supposedly for political reasons. A secondary school in the Peel Region has caught significant blowback from its weeding practices. The School Library caught the media’s attention when it was reported to have cut its library in half, having removed any book that was published before 2008, including the Harry Potter series and Ann Franks Diary.

Analysis

Weeding is a standard procedure, practiced across a variety of public and private libraries. It refers to the process of reviewing existing materials against a set of criteria to determine if they should remain as part of the collection. The guidelines that the Peel Region and many other Canadian school boards follow for weeding are published by the Canadian School Libraries (CSL). These guidelines include various criteria including ensuring materials are up to date, not damaged, and considers the relevance of the material’s content. The guidelines also center on the concept of equity and suggest the collection should reflect diverse experiences and perspectives and should meet the needs of the diverse population it serves.

A review several years ago of the Peel School Board found that concerns with racial discrimination were being persistently ignored. The report suggested that “PDSB undertake a comprehensive diversity audit of schools – including naming, mascots, libraries, and classrooms. This should include evaluating books, media and other resources currently being used in schools for teaching and learning English, History and Social Sciences to ensure that they are inclusive and culturally responsive, relevant, and reflective of the student bodies and voices, and broader school communities.” In response to the report, Ontario’s Minister of Education Stephen Lecce ordered the board to follow directives to address the issues, including the development of an anti-racism policy, and to conduct diversity audits on its learning materials.

The Toronto Sun article suggests that the school library disobeyed the directive and compared the weeding incident to a political book burning. The issue, however, seems to be that the library weeded out a huge portion of its books based on publication age alone. The school board director, Rasmi Swarup, responding to the incident suggested this was an error in the implementation of the weeding policy. He released a statement suggesting, “PDSB teacher librarians have not been given the direction to remove all books published with a publication date older than 2008, nor has the board received provincial direction to remove particular books from our collections.”

Given the apparent lack of discretion in weeding their library, as all books regardless of content published prior to 2008 were thrown out, there does not seem to be any evidence materials were weeded out according to any political considerations, or even any measure of equity. It is likely an error in implementation, especially considering some of the noted titles were arbitrary and non-political, such as The Hungry Caterpillar.

ALS Drug Coverage

Thu, 19 Oct 2023 18:47:16 GMT

Context

According to a CBC article Alberta has decided to cover the ALS drug Albrioza, following several other provinces that have added the drug to their health coverage plans. The drug costs a whopping $18,500 a month per patient and is now available to the approximately 500 people living with ALS in Alberta. Although this may sound like good news for ALS patients with few options, Albrioza is another high-cost drug that may not have a lot of evidence for its effectiveness.

Analysis

Health Canada reviews all medicines before they enter the Canadian market for safety and cost-effectiveness and makes a recommendation to provincial providers about whether they should cover the drug under their respective plans. Provinces like Alberta then review the evidence provided to them and make a final decision about coverage.

Health Canada was the first country in the world to approve the drug last year, but that approval came with stipulations. Albrioza is currently listed under conditional approval in Canada, which means that the drug was approved despite a lack of sufficient evidence to conclude it has a significant positive effect on the disease. The approval is conditional on the success or failure of post-market evidence collection. Drugs are typically approved with these conditions when the drug treats a rare disease, for which it is hard to collect evidence due to the small patient size.

Earlier in 2022, the FDA, United States regulatory body responsible for food and drugs, voted to not approve the drug for sale after a trial was run with insufficient conclusive evidence. In September of 2022, upon further review and pressure from patient groups, the US approved it for sale under the name Relyvrio. This approval was based on evidence from one single clinical trial which showed a positive result, although the panel acknowledged this is not sufficient evidence to show it works. Like Canada, the uncertainty of the drug is deemed acceptable given the potential benefit to patients’ lives of the serious disease.

Albrioza, like most medicines for ALS, is high cost, which has garnered controversy given the lack of evidence for their effectiveness. There has been an increased practice of fast-tracking drugs for rare diseases in both the US and Canada, often accepting them when they lack sufficient evidence. This is problematic due to the increased pressure on public plans that end up funding them.

The article above interviewed a patient with ALS, who says they would not be alive if they didn’t have access to Albrioza. Despite the impossibility of assessing this claim without sufficient evidence, many ALS patients live in the hope that an effective treatment will soon be developed, which strikes at the heart of the matter. Is the fact that a drug could be effective and lengthen the time of someone’s life worth the increasing pressure on our healthcare systems? And does approving profitable drugs without evidence they even work incentivize drug companies to submit products with an increasing uncertainty of effectiveness?

Federal Government, Energy Efficiency, and Housing

Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:23:39 GMT

Claim

Ottawa’s new ‘energy efficiency’ plan will raise new home costs 8 percent .

Context

The federal Liberal government’s Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP) outlines the national plan for decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a multitude of industries. For housing, this means cutting emissions by promoting new energy-efficient buildings. In the next coming years, the ERP identifies that residential buildings should use 61 percent and 65 percent less energy by 2025 and 2030, respectively. This reduction plan is based on levels from 2019. However, it was critiqued that building more energy-efficient homes will increase the cost by 8 percent around the country.

Analysis

Alongside residential buildings, commercial buildings were also hit with this mandate. This requires new commercial builds to decrease energy use by 47 percent by 2025 and 59 percent by 2030. This policy has several impacts at all stages of development and ownership, which may not reflect the intentions behind the ERP. For starters, it will increase the cost of construction by differing amounts across the country. For example, in Ontario or BC, costs could increase by over $70,000, and in Atlantic Canada, they could rise by over $22,000 . Overall, the national average could be seen at $55,000 per home. If Canadians want to retrofit their home, which isn’t necessarily mandated under this policy, it could cost them $18,000 .

This mandate could also have implications for national GDP. It’s being predicted that GDP will decline by 2 percent . This could be due to increases in residential and commercial construction costs. Additionally, 80,000 construction-related jobs and capital from the sector could be lost. When compared to a no-policy scenario, construction activity is actually predicted to decline by 6.8 percent as of 2030.

The effects of this housing mandate also show little evidence of lowering GHG emissions by drastic amounts. Many studies from the economic literature point towards energy efficiency mandates having minimal impact on emissions. For Canada, it could reduce emissions by 0.9 percent . However, the impact on GDP is actually predicted to have negative impacts on emissions due to the intensity of the economy. Comparatively, emissions reductions will cost 50 times more per tonne under this policy than the federal carbon tax.

Overall, one of the most effective ways to decrease emissions from the housing sector comes from the source of energy . In severe scenarios where no new emitting buildings entered the market after 2022, the emissions would fall by 26 percent by 2030. However, this is not enough to meet the government target of a 42 percent reduction.

Sources

Toronto Sun

Frasier Institute

Financial Post

Toronto Building Complex Banning Electric Vehicles

Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:15:00 GMT

Claim

“If you have any of these vehicles, please remove them from the premises immediately," the notice says, adding lithium batteries, a type of rechargeable battery, could be a "potential fire hazard”

Context

A Toronto building complex is receiving backlash after notices were posted effectively banning electric vehicles from the property. This prohibits residents from housing any sort of electric transportation from the garage, parking spaces, lockers, and inside the units. Oberon Development Corporation, the company behind this notice, defines electric transportation vehicles as not only electric cars, but electric bikes, motorbikes, hoverboards, mopeds, segways, and skateboard scooters. Now, tenants are beginning to raise legal concerns over the ban as it may violate legislation and tenant's rights.

Analysis

Oberon Development Corporation cited that this ban comes from concerns that lithium battery-charged devices could be a “ potential fire hazard ”. The Toronto Fire Services responded to 47 fires in the last year that involved lithium batteries of which only 10 occurred in high-rise residential buildings. However, lithium batteries can be found in everyday devices such as laptops, cell phones, children's toys, appliances, and more.

The National Research Council of Canada conducted research into the potential fire hazard of parked electric vehicles. It was found that electric vehicles don’t pose any more risk of fire than gas cars. The only concern here comes from the outdated parking structures and the lack of research concerning how to deal with electric vehicle fires. Transport Canada reviewed details from their testing, which found that original brand equipment manufacturer (OEM) batteries passed safety tests. Third-party batteries increase the likelihood of fire risk, which could be due to substandard manufacturing .

Residents are now seeking legal advice to deal with the new condo sanction. The Residential Tenancies Act ensures that tenants have the right to “ reasonable enjoyment ” of the premises – which includes their chosen method of transportation and storage in their unit. Additionally, if a tenant has a disability and relies on an electric vehicle, this ban could breach their human rights.

Unfortunately, there isn’t any language in the Residential Tenancies Act that specifies if the Corporation can make rules around the tenants’ personal property. If tenants think that their landlord has breached the Act, then they can file an application to the board.

Electric forms of transportation are only becoming more popular, especially in Toronto where owning a car may be expensive and unreasonable for many. Bikes and scooters especially are providing a low-cost solution to transportation for families who live in apartments or condos. Organizations such as The Atmospheric Fund are partnering with Kite Mobility to help residents in these types of buildings access electric transportation options through renting. At this moment, E-scooters are banned in Toronto to analyze the risks and benefits, the risks mainly relate to rider and street safety.

Sources

Ozempic -The Hype and Hazards

Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:04:40 GMT

Context

The article above cites a Hollywood nutritionist who stated that Ozempic’s appeal for those who wish to lose weight is how the drug delays food from making its way from the stomach to the small intestine. This gives the patient a feeling of fullness for longer and thus promotes weight loss.

Analysis

Currently, Ozempic is prescribed for diabetes but is being given off-label for weight loss management. There is also a stronger version of the drug with the same active ingredient Semaglutide under the brand name Wegovy, that has been recently approved for weight loss for those with obesity.

Common side effects of Ozempic include a variety of gastrointestinal issues such as nausea and diarrhea. Some serious side effects have been reported by users, including aspirating stomach contents under anesthesia, which has a high probability of causing lung damage. This is occurring even after fasting, due to how food remains for extended periods in the stomach. The European Medicines Agency is also currently investigating the drug after reports of self-harm and suicidal thoughts from patients. Recently, a lawsuit was filed against the drug’s manufacturer Nova Medicines, due to reported severe side effects including teeth loss due to extreme vomiting.

Ozempic does have evidence backing the claim that the drug promotes weight loss, with one study showing an average loss of 15 pounds. However, due to the severe side effects reported, and the early development of an investigation and lawsuit, it is unclear whether Ozempic will continue to be perceived as a viable weight loss solution in the future.

Links

Jasmeet Singh on on Pierre Poilievre

Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:30:00 GMT

Original Claim

Tweet from Singh "Pierre Poilievre is pretending. He doesn’t work for you. When he was in government for 9 years he sold-off 800,000 affordable homes to rich investors. Now, it’s obvious why."

Context

The ongoing affordable housing crisis in Canada is being discussed by politicians as a new housing policy is looming. Recently, leader of the federal Conservative party Pierre Poilievre has come under fire from the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jagmeet Singh because of Poilievre’s ties to real estate investors. Poilievre has exclaimed that he is “ the solution to Canada’s housing affordability crisis ”. However, it was uncovered that major real estate investors are donors to Poilievre’s Conservative party – with some reaping the benefits of millions in increased income.

Analysis

Very recently, Trudeau's Liberal government announced that they will be removing GST on new rental housing developments to encourage affordable home construction. At the same time, Poilievre countered this plan with a private housing bill, the “ Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act ”, which will be unveiled to Parliament in the coming week. With this bill, Poilievre states that it will increase the number of homes built by 15 percent a year. On top of that, Poilievre plans to sell 6,000 federal buildings and thousands of surplus acres of federal land to build more homes.

However, Singh has responded to Poilievre’s claims that he will solve the housing crisis in Canada by revealing that real estate investors are donating to Pollievre’s campaign. According to Elections Canada data, Avenue Living Real Estate Core Trust donated $1,900 to the Conservatives in 2022. In the same year, managed assets grew by 48% to $4.6 billion .

Additionally, Poilievre also “ sold-off 800,000 affordable homes ” over the past 9 years to “ rich investors ”. An example of this was seen in Vancouver , where Forum Asset Management who donated $7,875 to the federal Conservative party, turned a single room occupancy hotel that housed people at shelter rates, to micro suites for $2,000 a month. Before the units were converted, tenants were offered $15,000 to leave by Forum Asset Management.

Advocacy groups and housing experts have cited that the “ financialization of housing ” and raising rental rates are caused by real estate investment trusts (REITs) – the exact organizations that have donated to Poilievre’s Conservative party. REITs typically buy up affordable housing that’s deemed “ undervalued ”, like the former hotel in downtown Vancouver, and are transformed into high-end rentals by displacing low-rent-paying tenants.

Singh’s NDP solutions to the housing crisis involve tackling mortgage interest rates , increasing housing supply through a cost-share initiative with provinces and territories, and tabling a bill that focuses on tamping down corporate powers through Canada’s Competition Bureau. When Parliament resumes, Singh will be unveiling the “ Lowering Prices for Canadians Act ”, to better protect Canadians from “ bad corporate behaviour ”, such as price fixing and price gouging.

Sources

Winnipeg Free Press
Policy Alternatives

The Globe and Mail

CTV News

Road Safety - Driving Deaths

Fri, 06 Oct 2023 15:00:00 GMT

Original Claim

Displaying Death Tolls on Highways Isn’t Making Anyone Drive Any Safer

Context

Road signs on Texas highways displayed the shocking number of deaths that have occurred on their roads that year – 2687 driver deaths . Since the leading cause of death for those aged 5 to 45 in the US and worldwide is traffic crashes, policymakers are interested in understanding ways to decrease these deaths. With over 200 governments and institutions around the world implementing similar “ behavioural interventions ” for a variety of issues, such as hand washing, some policymakers are hoping to encourage drivers to be more careful on roadways in a similar way. However, one study found that motorway signs that use these tactics in 28 US states may increase the likelihood of crashes and deaths – not prevent deaths and encourage safer driving behaviours as they once thought.

Analysis

In August 2012 , the Texas Department of Transportation displayed a fatality highway dynamic message sign (DMS) message for one week per month to measure the impact of the marketing tactic. The thought behind this sign was to show drivers how many driving deaths have occurred to encourage them to change their driving behaviours to be safer. However, when comparing data from periods previous to the message implementation, the weeks where the campaign aired saw an increase in crashes by 1.52 percent within 5 km of the sign, and an increase of 1.35 percent over 10 km from the sign. Overall, the study measured a 4.5 percent increase in crashes spanning 10 km from the DMS. Researchers compared these results to the effects of increasing the speed limit by 3 to 5 miles per hour.

The effects of the increase in crashes due to the DMS have high social costs, at 2,600 more car crashes each year – which could result in 16 more fatalities in Texas alone. This has an estimated economic cost of $377 million per year. Across the US , implementing DMSs could cause 17,000 additional crashes and 104 fatalities each year, with a total cost of $2.5 billion per year.

The research also concluded that “ distractions create extraneous cognitive load ” that interrupts a person’s ability to process new information. DMSs that display such statistics may increase an individual’s anxiety or fear of death that may cause them to overthink - which reduces their ability to respond to changes in traffic safely and quickly. This effect only increases throughout the year as the number of deaths continues to climb.

Overall, behavioral campaigns can be effective in changing habits – but not when it comes to driving. The DMSs are too distracting , don’t have impacts that persist after they are displayed, and were only found to increase the number of crashes. Other methods of intervention are suggested, such as focusing more on road design and the environment in which crashes occur. If the same area receives more crashes per year, the design of that segment could be to blame instead of human error .

Sources

Strongtowns.org
Science.org

Single Use Plastic Ban

Thu, 05 Oct 2023 15:00:00 GMT

Context

In late 2022, the Canadian Federal Government placed a ban on several single-use plastics to combat the harmful effects of plastic pollution. The regulation includes bans on the imports and manufacturing of six categories of plastics which takes effect in 2025. This policy has caused people to evaluate the effectiveness of banning plastics, and what the environmental benefits are. Many industry and academic professionals express this ban as a political move rather than a scientific one, as research shows plastic alternatives may not be as environmentally friendly as we may think.

Analysis

The federal ban on single-use plastics includes single-use plastic checkout bags, cutlery, food service ware, stir sticks, and straws. This ban also includes ring carriers , however, the prohibition of these plastics doesn’t begin until 2023-2024. By the end of 2025 , manufacturing and importing to export of these six categories will also be prohibited. There are exceptions to this ban, for example, single-use plastic straws remain for those who require them for medical or accessibility reasons.

Bans such as these have come under fire as Canada only contributes 0.02 percent of all ocean plastics. Additionally, Canada doesn’t have a plastic waste problem, as 99 percent of plastic waste is properly disposed of through recycling, incineration, and environmentally friendly landfills. Through the ban, 1.5 million tonnes of plastics will be removed in the next ten years, however, substitute products made from paper, wood, or aluminum will require double the tonnage. Additionally, these substitutes have “ higher climate change impacts ”, according to the government's Strategic Environmental Assessment. Paper , for example, requires more energy to transport, and more water to produce, and results in higher GHG emissions than plastics.

Plastic prohibition policy effectiveness is being questioned around the world as similar bans are enacted in parts of Europe. However, numerous studies have indicated that plastic alternatives , such as reusable cotton or paper bags, have higher fossil fuel impacts than plastics. This highlights the need to supplement plastic use with alternatives that can last decades such as glass, but understand how to use plastics in a better way that produces less waste . Additionally, there is a push to focus more on more effective long-term solutions , such as circular plastic systems, that encourage reducing and reusing plastics.

This ban will also cost the Canadian government billions. Though $616 million is avoided through plastic clean-up expenses, in the next 10 years $2 billion will be required to manage the waste from substitutes, enforcement of the regulation, and the missed profit for manufacturers.

Sources

Vacant Unit Taxes

Wed, 04 Oct 2023 14:41:28 GMT

Context

Vacant unit taxes were implemented in Ottawa in 2022 to address the number of homes that are sitting empty. The intention is to increase the housing supply by encouraging owners to occupy or rent the properties. Cities all over Canada are struggling with a housing crisis, which is hoped to be helped by implementing this tax. However, City Councillors in Ottawa are calling to scrap the tax because it’s seen as an “ unparalleled annual bureaucratic burden ” on homeowners.

Analysis

The new vacant unit tax in Ottawa has come under fire as it requires owners to submit an annual declaration indicating if a property was empty for more than 184 days in the previous year. The tax adds one percent of the home’s assessed value to the Final Tax Bill.

Some City councillors in Ottawa expressed concerns over this tax because they shouldn’t be “ telling people how to use their home s ”. Councillors also argued that homeowners who didn’t intend on paying the tax ended up needing to due to the number of vacant days – which is why the tax is being claimed as an “ unparalleled annual bureaucratic burden ”.

However, 3,268 homes were declared vacant by homeowners in Ottawa, whereas 2,836 homes were declared vacant by the city. Ottawa’s vacancy rate was 1.8 percent , which was triple the original predictions. Comparing this to larger cities in Canada, Toronto had a vacancy rate of 0.6 percent and Vancouver had a vacancy rate of 1.17 percent . These rates only show the massive amount of homes that could be occupied to increase supply and therefore increase affordability .

Since the tax was recently implemented, knowing the effectiveness of its impact on the housing crisis cannot be calculated for two or three years . However, success has been seen in Vancouver with their vacant home and speculation tax which was implemented in 2018. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation found that the Vancouver tax assisted in adding 18,000 units to the long-term rental market in 2019 and 2020.

On August 23rd, 2023, the Vacant Unit Tax was maintained following a vote in council. City Councillors voted 15-8 in support of the tax, while also directing staff to “improve and further simplify the declaration process.”

Canada Wildfires - Are Wildfires Getting Worse?

Mon, 18 Sep 2023 18:37:51 GMT

Context

Wildfires are a natural and necessary part of the forest cycle and occur every year in Canada. Many species have adapted to fires and depend on occasional burns to reproduce and regenerate. On their own, fires are not necessarily a bad thing.

This year, however, Canada has seen record numbers of wildfires and acres burned from wildfires. As of July 18th, fires have already burned more than 25 million acres, eclipsing the previous record from 1989 when over 18 million acres burned. Fires also started burning earlier in the season than other years, when most fires would start burning in June or July, and have spread into more populated areas that are typically less prone to fires.

Analysis

Wildfires typically start in two main ways - lightning strikes and human activity, including open campfires, industrial activity, vehicles, powerlines, and other accidental causes.

Regardless of the source, this year’s wildfires have been made worse by hot and dry conditions, poor forestry practices, disease, pests, and a buildup of dried debris.

Heat waves in Alberta, BC, Ontario, and Quebec have created conditions that have exacerbated the strength of fires. At the same time, 60 percent of the country was experiencing “Abnormally Dry” to “Extreme” levels of drought in the month of June.

Further, historical fire suppression techniques have allowed dried organic materials to build up on the forest floor, while the planting of non-native and commercial trees that are more prone to fire has also made it easier for fire to spread.

While the strength and frequency of wildfires will always vary from year to year, the Canadian Wildland Fire Strategy projects that wildfires will increase by 18 percent by 2050, and 50 percent by 2100, with shifting weather patterns and hotter and drier summers resulting in longer and more severe fire seasons.

Carbon Pricing - Justin Trudeau

Mon, 18 Sep 2023 18:32:01 GMT

Context

The ‘price on pollution’ or carbon tax initiative from the Liberal government has been implemented in conjunction with carbon rebate initiatives. According to the Liberal Party the intent of the carbon tax and rebates are to create a disincentive for businesses and individuals to pollute the environment with CO2. The majority of the revenue collected from the carbon tax goes back into the economy as a rebate to families and businesses, which benefits the most those who pollute less.

Analysis

International studies have shown that carbon taxes are effective at reducing carbon consumption and are one of the most cost-effective measures as compared to implementing regulations and subsidies.

Analyses done on the net effect of the carbon tax and rebate show that over five years of implementation only the wealthiest 20 percent of Canadians will pay more than they receive in rebates, which works out to 8 out of 10 families who will receive more money than they spend on the carbon tax.

Sources

Canada.ca

Springer Link

Office of the Parliamentary Budget

Is Sweden Giving up on Green Energy?

Mon, 11 Sep 2023 17:15:21 GMT

Context

To achieve 2045 targets of net-zero fossil-fuel pollution, Sweden has changed their environmental platform goals from achieving 100 percent ‘renewable’ energy to 100 percent ‘fossil-free’ energy sources. This incorporates nuclear power and will likely lead to the construction of nuclear plants, despite a decades long attempt to phase out nuclear power. Currently, about 30 percent of Sweden’s electricity is generated by nuclear, with the remaining majority through water and wind.

Analysis

Whether or not Sweden has made a backward environmental decision by incorporating nuclear energy into their net-zero plan depends on if nuclear energy is understood as ‘green’ or not, an internationally contested issue.

Nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions during its operation, and even considering the pollution generated from the construction of nuclear plants and the management of its waste, it is generally considered a much better alternative to coal and natural gas. It also tends to be more reliable, as it is not susceptible to fuel interruptions like wind and solar. Because of this, many countries are considering nuclear in their transition to renewable energy as a useful alternative to fossil fuels.

Source List

Reuters.com

Energy.gov

iea.org

Meta Putting Profit Ahead of Safety by Blocking Wildfire News, Says Trudeau

Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:20:02 GMT

Context

A story published by CTV reported Justin Trudeau’s comments about Meta’s decision to block Canadian

news from its platform, and its impact on the spread of information related to the wildfires in Canada.

The bill in question is the Online News Act, Bill C-18. Meta blocked Canadian users from seeing news

content from August 1st, 2023.

The article quotes Trudeau as saying, “Facebook is putting corporate profits ahead of people's safety,"

and harshly criticized Meta’s decision to continue the ban. This comes after reports that people were

upset that they were unable to share important information about the wildfires over Facebook.

Analysis

The Online News Act legislates revenue-sharing obligations between news organizations and online

platforms. It does this by requiring that large digital platforms negotiate payment for the use of news

content from Canadian news organizations.

A similar law was being tabled in Australia in 2020, called the News Media Bargaining Code, which also

requires online news platforms to pay local news organizations for their content. Meta was also

staunchly opposed to this bill and, like what has happened in Canada, pulled Australian content off their

platform. Subsequent negotiations between Australia and Facebook resulted in an agreement after just

a few days, and a continuation of Australian news content on FB.

The Australian agreement included some amendments to the legislation arbitration process. As the

legislation stood prior to the amendment, when a commercial deal was not able to be made between

the two parties, the government could step in and rule on a payment. The amendment gives more space

for Meta to negotiate their contracts before any enforcement from the government. Since then,

Australian news organizations have brokered deals with Meta for their content independently. It is

unclear why Facebook has not yet chosen to enter negotiations with Canada as it did with Australia.

It is difficult to determine the value Meta receives from news content, and what the news organizations

receive themselves from exposure on Meta’s platform. However, 80 percent of all ad revenue from

Canadian companies, accounting for about $10 billion in 2022, went to the two giants Google and

Facebook. After the ban the Federal Government pulled their ads from Meta’s platform, valued at $10

million. Multiple provinces have since followed suit.

Early in August 2023, a complaint under the Competition Act of Canada was filed against Meta by some

of the largest Canadian news organizations for reportedly abusing their dominant position and control

over media, related to the ban. Meta could face a fine of up to $10 million if found in violation. It is yet

to be seen if the increasing pressure on Meta will eventually bring them to the negotiating table with

Canadian legislators.

In response to criticism, Meta has claimed that users can still engage with members of their community,

official Government sources, emergency services, and other non-governmental organizations. They also point to the Safety Check feature, which was activated for the Canadian wildfires. At this time, Meta

does not intend to reverse its decision to block Canadian news stories.

Stuck in Traffic?

Wed, 17 May 2023 19:47:51 GMT

More lanes or more alternatives?

What Causes Traffic?

In the US, 13,500 miles of highways regularly slow below the posted speed limits while 8,700 miles experience stop-and-go conditions. Traffic and road congestion is a frustrating reality for a large portion of those who commute by car. Unfortunately, traffic can’t always be predicted and is usually caused by saturation, construction, and accidents .

Saturation is the most common cause and occurs when there are more cars on the road than can be handled, usually due to a lack of infrastructure . However, the construction required to build new infrastructure can also be a main source of congestion. Accidents cause the most traffic as they are unpredictable and can span multiple lanes and directions.

Traffic Impacts on Commutes & Supply Chains

Traffic impacts people, businesses, and supply chains. For commuters, traffic can add hours to weekly commuting times. Texas A&Ms Transportation Institute found that the average American spends 54 hours annually stuck in traffic. This number is set to increase to 62 hours by 2025. Costs associated with traffic in the US are also set to increase by 20 percent to $200 billion in the same timeframe.

For businesses, the movement of goods and services is greatly affected by traffic. The Department of Transportation found that traffic costs the trucking industry $27 billion a year because of lost time and extra fuel consumption. Some companies experienced a 5 percent to 10 percent reduction in drayage productivity (transportation of goods over a short distance).

Solving Traffic – Advantages of More Lanes

Lower Cost of Using Existing Infrastructure

While building alternative transit methods may have a positive effect on traffic, the cost to build up necessary infrastructure is extensive. To compare, building a brand new, 4-lane highway, costs between USD $4-$6 million per mile in urban or suburban areas, and USD $8 to $10 million per mile in urban areas . However, adding lanes to highways or roads is less expensive. For example, upgrading a 4-lane highway to a 6-lane would cost, on average, around USD $4 million per mile.

Looking at the cost to build public transit infrastructure, even upgrading current systems is much more expensive. A new light-rail connecting east and west Toronto was projected to cost CAD $3.66 billion in 2007. Now, the cost has increased to USD $4.45 billion , or nearly USD $314 million per mile, and is only 53 percent completed. Even the Blue line extension in Montreal was projected to cost CAD $670 million per kilometer , or approximately USD $857 million per mile, making it one of the most expensive subway projects in the world.

Overall, it’s clear that adding lanes and upgrading highways is much more cost-effective than building up public transit infrastructure.

Improve Traffic Flow & Surrounding Areas

Cities or neighborhoods that have exhausted other low-cost options for maximizing road capacity can add lanes to help improve traffic flow. New lanes in the right locations can draw congestion from other roads that can’t access such relief. Added lanes can also increase mobility throughout the area by providing access to areas that were once difficult to reach. New lanes may also encourage commuters to utilize the businesses in the surrounding areas, which stimulates the local economy .

In addition, new lanes that feed into greater networks can slow the rate of congestion . Data from over 100 urban areas show that when road capacity is increased at a similar rate as demand, such areas experience a slower increase in congestion . Though increasing lanes doesn’t fully eliminate congestion, it improves the flow of traffic through and around major roadways and could aid in stimulating the surrounding economy.

Cars Offer Faster and Cheaper Options Over Certain Distances

While traveling within a large metropolitan area, alternatives such as extensive bike paths and reliable transit systems encourage car-free lifestyles . However, in rural or suburban areas, these alternatives are not always an option. For most of the US, it can be difficult to get anywhere without a car, and for 45 percent of Americans , public transportation isn’t an option. Living without a car is only an option for those who live in certain areas, making well-maintained roads and cars necessary for a large percentage of the population.

In many cases, traveling by car can be faster, cheaper, and more convenient than alternatives such as planes, coach buses, or trains. Traveling from NYC to Philadelphia takes roughly 2.5 hours by car or by plane, but the cost to fly is approximately USD $66, compared to roughly $20 to drive. Trains are also expensive, at $45 for this trip , while a bus would cost $26

However, after a certain distance, driving isn’t always the best option. A trip from NYC to LA by car would take 43 hours , whereas a plane takes 8.5 hours. However, a bus would take 63 hours and a train would take 66 hours. In terms of cost, the plane is the cheapest at $151 and driving would cost $524. Though a longer journey, trains cost $184 and buses cost $211.

Solving Traffic – The Benefits of More Alternatives

Decreased Pollution

One of the greatest advantages of introducing transportation alternatives is the reduction in CO2 emissions. Almost 75 percent of greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation are seen through surface transportation such as cars, trains, or ships. Of these emissions, 45.1 percent come from passenger vehicles , such as cars and buses, and 29.4 percent come from road freight , including trucks. Though it is difficult to reduce road freight since trucks play such an important role in connecting the country, reducing the emissions from passenger vehicles is within reach.

To compare, a single-vehicle trip generates 0.96 pounds of CO2 per passenger per mile (ppm), whereas a bus with full occupancy only generates 0.18/pm. Additionally, heavy rail, light rail, and 4-person carpools generate only 0.11/pm, 0.14/pm, and 0.24/pm, respectively. Those who do live near stations or bus stops produced the least amount of emissions and drive 4,400 fewer miles per year than those who aren’t in such proximity.

By switching to alternatives, like a bus or subway, a typical two-adult, two-car household can reduce its annual CO2 emissions by 48,000 pounds . Overall, US public transit can reduce emissions by 37 million metric tons annually by providing commuters with an alternative option to driving.

Commuters Save Money

Switching to transit alternatives can also save commuters thousands of dollars per year. Typically, one-way transit costs for buses or subways can range from $0.20-to $4.60 , depending on the country and city. In New York, the cost is $2.80 . Many cities offer weekly or monthly passes which give commuters unlimited uses, which, in NYC, costs $127 per month or $1,524 annually. Though it doesn’t seem significant, a pass gives you unlimited usage, so the savings are greater if you factor in other trips. Commuters can also choose to bike, which has an average annual cost of $308 , or walk, which is free.

The cost of a vehicle alone is significant, with car payments, gas, insurance, maintenance, and more. Annually, the average car owner spends $9,122 per year to own and operate their car.

Living in a big city, like San Francisco, the annual savings from not owning a car amount to $14,625. However, cities need to be equipped with proper public transit infrastructure to support residents without cars.

Reduced Congestion & Reliance on Cars

The greatest argument in favor of alternatives is the reduction in congestion, which is a direct result of decreasing the use of cars. This was realized in LA in 2003 when transit workers went on strike. They found that during the 35-day shutdown of all major bus and rail lines, congestion increased from 53 percent to 90 percent on roads. On US 101, which parallels the major rail line, traffic increased by 123 percent. After the strike, congestion decreased by 47 percent. Though traffic was still an issue after this period and continues to be problematic for commuters, this shutdown displayed the true reliance on public transit . Now more alternatives need to be added and upgraded to further decrease congestion on major roadways to realize the full effect.

Take the success in Copenhagen, Denmark , where 90 percent of residents own bikes compared to only 40 percent who own cars. They have made it more accessible to travel by bike by introducing more paths and lanes and increasing bike parking at transit stations. Currently, only 26 percent of trips are done by car , whereas 27 percent are completed using public transit and 41 percent are done by bike. They have become a top performer in reducing congestion by introducing more accessible alternatives to commuters.

Short-Term Vacation Rentals

Wed, 17 May 2023 19:24:51 GMT

How Platforms Like Airbnb Impact Hosts, Guests, and Cities

As pandemic restrictions ease and travelers flock to new cities around the world, short-term vacation rental platforms such as Airbnb provide an attractive alternative to traditional hotels.

Offering a unique opportunity to live like a local, Airbnbs and other short-term rental sites have rapidly grown in popularity over the past decade. And while they still don’t match up to hotels in terms of market size, there’s no doubt that they’ve reshaped the way that people travel.

So, how have short-term vacation rentals affected the hosts who rent out their properties, the guests who stay in these accommodations, and the cities who have seen an explosion of new listings in their communities? And do the benefits outweigh the costs?

This article, part of a series on the rise of the gig economy, will explore the pros and cons of short-term rentals.

An Overview of the Short-Term Vacation Rental Industry

Short-term vacation rental platforms allow property owners to rent out space to travelers. Originally billed as a way to make additional income off of a spare room or to offset the cost of a mortgage while a unit was vacant, entrepreneurs and investors quickly realized that they could professionalize the industry and build significant businesses.

VRBO (Vacation Rentals By Owner) launched as one of the first vacation rental platforms in 1995. But the industry hit the mainstream with the arrival of Airbnb in 2008. Since then, the global vacation rental industry has grown to more than US $82 billion in 2022, with more than 887 million users expected to book a short-term rental by 2026.

These numbers are still relatively small compared to the traditional hotel and resort sector. Worldwide revenue peaked before the pandemic at $1.52 trillion in 2019, before dropping back to around $1 trillion in 2022 as the industry recovered from the pandemic.

Advantages of Short-Term Vacation Rentals

Hosts Can Build a Viable Business

When it first started, Airbnb was aimed at allowing people to rent out a spare room to make additional income. And this is still a viable option for many users on the platform. In fact, a 2021 survey found that 54 percent of those who own their home would consider renting it out and that a further 82 percent believe this is a good money-making strategy.

In terms of average earnings, Airbnb far exceeds other gig economy platforms such as Taskrabbit, Uber, and Fiverr. A 2021 report showed that nearly half of all Airbnb hosts make more than $500 per month, while the top 10 percent earn at least $2000 per month. Overall, the average host earned $924 per month, more than triple that of Taskrabbit users which ranked second on the list.

Another advantage of Airbnb is that it can grow into a larger business. Unlike Uber, where earnings are limited by the driver’s time and ability to provide rides, Airbnb hosts can have multiple listings earning money simultaneously. There are nearly 2 million professionally managed vacation rental properties in the US alone, and more than 60,000 Airbnb hosts operate at least two other listings . For those who can, Airbnb represents a real opportunity to make money, especially in tourist destinations.

Guests Gain Unique Experiences Compared to Hotels

Unlike hotels, short-term rentals typically offer guests a unique travel experience in different parts of a city. They allow guests to live more like a local, seeing the city more authentically than if they stayed at a hotel.

In general, guests have tended to prefer Airbnbs to hotels. A recent Goldman Sachs survey found that 79 percent of respondents preferred hotels until they stayed in a vacation rental, at which point the number dropped to only 40 percent. A second survey also found that 60 percent of travelers who had used both preferred Airbnbs .

Among the top reasons for choosing a vacation rental over a hotel included access to a kitchen , increased privacy, and the larger space offered by rentals . Interestingly, leisure travelers tended to prefer Airbnbs, while business travelers preferred hotels. Nearly 70 percent of business travelers reported a negative experience with the platform.

Cities Can Benefit From Tourism and Taxes

Airbnb and other short-term rental platforms can bring tourists to cities and provide an economic benefit to surrounding communities. According to one 2017 study , Airbnb was found to support more than 730,000 jobs and deliver more than $61 billion in global output. Beyond these economic benefits, Airbnb claimed to have collected and remitted more than $1.5 billion in tourism taxes in the US in 2021, an increase of 87 percent over 2019.

However, there is some evidence to suggest these claims may be misleading. For example, two studies have found that only 2 to 4 percent of Airbnb guests would not have taken their trip if Airbnb wasn’t available, indicating that travelers are simply substituting hotel stays rather than traveling more.

Likewise, hotels are typically the largest source of tourism tax dollars for cities, and in places that lack strong regulations, cities are likely to lose out on a significant share of this important source of revenue.

Disadvantages of Short-Term Vacation Rentals

Inconsistent Accommodations

While Airbnbs offer unique experiences and a wider choice of accommodations, the flip side of this point is that guests can have vastly different experiences from one stay to the next. The platforms themselves take a light-touch approach to managing the accommodation, leaving the hosts responsible for everything. As a result, there is no guarantee of the level of service, quality, security, and cleanliness once a guest arrives.

On the inconvenient end of the scale, this could mean a difficult check-in experience or a host being late to drop off a key. In other cases, guests have found units that have not been properly cleaned or repaired between visits.

The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic offered a unique glimpse into how this could impact guests. Most hotels offered generous refunds to travelers who had to cancel their trips due to the pandemic, while sites like VRBO left it up to the hosts to decide. Airbnb eventually set up a large fund to help cover the cost of refunds for hosts, but guests still had to go through the host to receive a refund.

But the lack of standards can have more dangerous consequences as well. There are many horror stories of violence, break-ins, and other security concerns. In one case, Airbnb paid $7 million to a guest after she was assaulted by someone with a duplicate key to the unit.

Short-Term Rentals Raise Housing Costs

One of the biggest issues surrounding short-term vacation rentals is that they take housing off the market and repurpose it for tourists who don’t live in the city. With less supply, housing prices increase, eventually pricing people out of the market and forcing them to move to other communities.

While all cities face this challenge, the problem is greatest in cities with large tourism industries such as New York, Barcelona, and Toronto. A 2019 report showed that 6,500 homes were removed from the market in Toronto, and McGill University found that more than 31,000 rental units across Canada were no longer available as housing.

Multiple studies have found a causal link between an increase in short-term rental units and an increase in rental and ownership costs. A 2021 paper from researchers at the University of Cologne in Germany attributed 14.2 percent of overall rent increases to short-term rentals, equivalent to about US $385 per year for new tenants.

A separate study reported in Harvard Business Review found that, when taken in aggregate, the growth of Airbnb alone was causally associated with about 20 percent of the average annual increase in US rents and about 14 percent of the annual increase in housing prices.

Short-Term Vacation Rentals May Be Illegal or Increasingly Regulated

Citing the impact on housing costs as well as the local communities they operate in, many cities have taken steps to regulate, tax, or outright ban the short-term rental industry.

Barcelona, a long-time tourist destination, became the first European city to ban short-term private-room rentals in August 2021. Other European cities including Berlin, Prague, Madrid, and Amsterdam have all passed regulations of their own in the forms of quotas, licenses, zoning, or taxes to limit the spread of short-term rentals.

As cities grapple with how to regulate these so-called “ghost hotels”, they are also struggling to enforce existing regulations. Because of the additional burden placed on city staff, many illegal listings remain available on platforms such as Airbnb. In New York, for example, 45 percent of all Airbnb reservations were illegal , accounting for more than two-thirds of all revenue earned in the city.

Short-Term Rentals Offer an Alternative to Traditional Hotels, But With Some Costs

Short-term rentals provide travelers with more choice of where to stay, a unique accommodation over a hotel, and an opportunity to experience a city like a local. But while they may claim to bring economic benefits to a city, the existing evidence suggests these benefits are outweighed by the costs incurred by cities in the form of increased housing costs and a loss of tourism tax revenues.

As the tourism industry rebounds from the pandemic, short-term vacation rentals will continue to be an attractive choice for travelers. In response, cities will need to continue to find ways to allow these services to operate while mitigating the downsides for local residents. When traveling, guests should look to choose an accommodation that fits their budget, needs, and location, while taking steps to ensure they are following all regulations and being good neighbors to those who live in the community.

Public vs Private Healthcare

Wed, 17 May 2023 19:19:19 GMT

What are the benefits and drawbacks?

Within a given country, the institutions which provide healthcare services to a population are financed through public, private, or a combination of both sources. Depending on the system, funding usually encompasses operational necessities for those institutions such as salaries for healthcare workers, equipment purchases and repairs, medical procedures, and prescriptions.

Publicly funded healthcare refers to healthcare financed by government revenues such as tax income and social insurance contributions. These revenues are typically managed by the government or government agencies and are distributed to institutions that provide care to the population. The management of this fund and the distribution and use of the money is usually structured by the laws of the respective country.

Private healthcare, in contrast, is usually provided by for-profit businesses or corporations which run healthcare organizations such as hospitals. Private healthcare also encompasses self-employed practitioners who charge privately for their services. Private insurance coverage or out-of-pocket payment by patients make up the primary sources of financing for private healthcare.

Among the OECD countries, publicly funded healthcare accounts for 71 percent of total health expenditure , which in turn accounts for, on average, 15 percent of total government spending. Notably, having a larger portion of healthcare funded by public sources doesn’t necessarily result in a larger portion of total government spending on healthcare. The United States, whose system ranks as having one of the lowest shares of public funding, also spends more of its total governmental budget on healthcare than most countries in the OECD.

This article will explore some of the common arguments in favor of public and privately funded healthcare systems.

Arguments for Publicly Funded Healthcare

Increased Equity and Income Equality

Health equity is a measurement of how access to healthcare, treatment, and good health outcomes are distributed across a population. Equity is high when everyone has a fair opportunity to increase their health regardless of factors such as gender, race, income, and pre-existing medical conditions. Publicly funded healthcare is usually intended to be accessible to the entire population, where access is structured on the basis of need rather than the ability to pay.

According to the WHO, about half of the world’s population doesn’t receive the care that they need due to financial barriers. Approximately 100 million people around the world are pushed into extreme poverty due to expenditures on healthcare. This is not just an issue limited to developing countries. For example, medical expenses are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States, accounting for 66.5 percent of claims.

Arguments based on increasing health equity usually suggest that healthcare should not be treated as a marketable good, but rather a fundamental right or condition of citizenship. Systems with privatized healthcare result in financial barriers, which allow wealthier people to access more and better care, while poorer people are either further economically marginalized, forced to take on debt, or excluded from care altogether. Studies tend to show that healthcare systems with higher rates of private financing are negatively associated with equity and accessibility.

Creating a Healthier Population

People live healthier and longer lives when they have access to healthcare. When the failure or success of a health system is measured by how healthy the overall population is, publicly funded healthcare systems are usually favored. Research shows that countries with more publicly funded healthcare systems have healthier populations, while increased private financing is negatively associated with improved health outcomes.

Reducing barriers to healthcare resolves health issues faster, avoids preventable deaths, and decreases overall demand on the system. For example, cost barriers are one of the biggest reasons for prescription non-adherence, a factor in 67 percent of preventable deaths in the United States. In Canada, where pharmaceuticals do not fall under the national healthcare program, economic barriers to accessing prescribed medication result in additional visits to the doctor’s office and emergency rooms , which has been estimated to be more expensive than funding those medications outright.

There are also economic benefits that come when a country has a generally healthier population and fewer financial barriers to care. When the population is sick less, the overall workforce is more productive, and workplaces have fewer costs associated with lost income.

Increased Efficiency

Increased efficiency is a common argument made in favor of privatization, which assumes that increased competition in an open market should create more efficient services that are free from the bureaucracy of a public system. However, studies tend to show that although privatized healthcare systems typically provide better timeliness and customer service, they tend to have less reported efficiency , due in part to profit incentives that increase unnecessary testing and treatment.

Publicly funded systems have been found to have reduced administrative costs overall. One study on the American system concluded administrative costs were the most substantial inefficiency of the system, which could be avoided with a publicly funded single-payer plan. This included insurance claims processing, payment validation, and contracting. For example, with multiple insurance companies with a variety of billing requirements, hospitals needed more administrative staff. There is also the added burden to the patient, who wastes time haggling with insurance companies over claims.

Proponents also argue that universal healthcare typically leads to the formation of a centralized national healthcare database, which tends to increase the flow of information between doctors and care providers. In the private industry, separate record systems inflate the cost of care and can lead to poor data collection. This centralized database could also help improve and innovate system efficiencies as well as healthcare outcomes with improved data integration.

Arguments for Privately Funded Healthcare

Personalized Care and Consumer Choice

Proponents of privately funded healthcare suggest that publicly funded systems are only able to offer limited and general services, due to constraints in staffing, budgets, and the lack of incentives to innovate and create more personalized services. Private systems do tend to offer better hospitality and decreased wait times , especially for elective or specialized treatments.

It is also argued that public healthcare results in a decrease in the patient’s ability to freely choose their treatment options., including choices in kinds of medications and surgical procedures. In a publicly funded system, the government typically determines the type of services that are covered as opposed to the patient. In a private system, there may be more services offered by differing-priced doctors and hospitals which patients could choose from, allowing them to select the option that is best for their needs.

Compensation for Healthcare Work

Under publicly funded systems, physicians and healthcare providers may be constrained in their ability to charge more for their services to those who wish to pay outside of the public system. For example, an ongoing major constitutional challenge in the province of British Columbia is making the argument that patients should have the right to pay privately for medical services outside of the public system and that physicians should be allowed to charge those patients extra for these services.

Since public healthcare systems typically cap fees and rates of compensation for providers, there is a risk that fewer potential doctors may decide to work in a country with a publicly funded system, and that they may also be dissuaded from choosing a medical profession at all. Fewer doctors could lead to more stress on the healthcare system if new doctors do not keep up with the demand for care, resulting in longer waiting periods for appointments and emergency services.

Some physicians and healthcare workers might end up making more money in privatized systems. This is the case with some specializations such as Orthopedic surgeons in the United States when compared to Canada. This creates a potential incentive for medical talent to leave the country in search of better compensation.

Filling the Gaps In Public Care

Some suggest that privatized healthcare has a role in supporting publicly funded services, which may be overburdened or inadequate to meet demand. Notably, all OECD countries allow some form of privatized healthcare alongside their publicly funded systems. If a particular government is reluctant to increase taxes or modify its budget to pay for improved healthcare, this can leave a gap that a government might be willing to offload onto the private sector.

Many Western countries in Europe and North America are seeing a growing aging population and an increase in associated healthcare costs. This is gradually putting more and more pressure on healthcare systems, and governments are having to spend a higher percentage of their budgets on healthcare. A greater role for the private sector might enable healthcare providers to keep up and reduce the burden on government spending. This might also result in lower tax rates when the responsibility to pay is shifted onto individuals.

The Choice of Private or Public Systems

The decision of a government to create and support a public, private, or dually funded system can be a politically and economically complex choice. Oftentimes, arguments made in favor or against a particular system are moral or value judgments based on considerations about the rights of individuals and the way societies should conceptualize medical care. For example, should we understand healthcare as a fundamental right or a marketable good?

Ultimately, many countries are attempting to find the right balance between publicly funded healthcare and the role of private industry. Those who value equity in the healthcare system, the overall health of the population, and efficiency, may favor a public system. Those who value individual choice, the freedoms of providers, and the role of the private sector in filling the gap left by public institutions may fall on the side of privatization.

Controlling Forest Fires

Wed, 17 May 2023 19:13:21 GMT

Do Fire Management Techniques Do More Harm Than Good?

The natural environment is heavily affected by forest fires. Fires can damage vegetation , destroy the food source and homes for wildlife , and impact communities and populations in heavily forested regions. While some larger and older trees can survive fires, smaller plants and trees are usually destroyed in the process.

In the United States, 85 percent of forest fires are caused by humans , usually from unattended campfires , negligently discarded cigarettes, the burning of debris, equipment use/malfunctions, and intentional acts of arson. In Canada, 45 percent of forest fires are started by lightning .

Forest fires can devastate local areas, especially when caused by human activities. But forest fires also play a role in the natural environmental cycle by replenishing nutrients and creating new habitats.

In this article, we’ll explore how forests are managed and whether those techniques are beneficial or harmful to forests, humans, and the climate.

Forest Management Techniques

Fire adaptation and fire suppression are the two main categories of management. Fire adaptation uses use multiple tools to allow communities to live with wildfire without harm. The techniques identify risk, mitigate it, and continuously maintain the efforts over time. Fire suppression , on the other hand, is used to put fires out once they’ve already been ablaze – meaning they are much more costly to implement and maintain.

Fire breaks are the most popular tool to reduce the risk of a forest fire. Breaks are made up of manually cut open areas of trees and vegetation that are used to stop fire spread and protect greater areas of forest. This can also be done with logging, in which greater areas are cut down to reduce the risk of fires.

Thinning forests of weak and diseased trees make room for healthy trees, specifically root rot-resistant trees , which are less susceptible to fire than diseased trees. The healthier trees that grow after a forest is thinned are less likely to burn due to moisture retention, compared to diseased trees that become dryer and provide fuel for fires.

Controlled burns are used to remove the debris on the forest floor, which can ignite and further spread fires. By controlling the area in which it burns, healthy trees and vegetation can be somewhat preserved while reducing the risk of large, out-of-control fires.

Arguments In Favour of Forest Fire Management

Climate Change Mitigation

Forest fires and climate change have a cause-and-effect relationship. With rising temperatures and massive droughts, forest vegetation dries out faster and more thoroughly . These conditions make brush extremely easy to ignite which makes fires burn further and wider . Global warming has also extended the forest fire season by extending the time when the weather is warm and dry enough for fires to occur.

When fires do start, they release massive amounts of emissions . Fires contribute 1.76 billion tonnes of carbon annually, which accelerates global warming and directly leads to increased temperature. Projections show an annual increase of 1 degree Celsius would increase the annual median burned area by 600 percent.

The only way to decrease emissions caused by forest fires is to decrease the number of fires – which requires mitigation strategies. The United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) is working to implement national strategies, including monitoring systems and safeguarding information systems . Through this, individual nations are taking control of forest fire management and protecting the climate from these emissions.

Preserve the Forests & Reduce Future Risk

As a consequence of climate change, the natural abilities of forests to resist and prevent fires have been damaged. Therefore, forest management is crucial for reducing the risk of fires and preserving the forest. Compared to fire-suppressed forests, ecologically managed forests have proven to be the best technique to prepare forests to withstand fires. Specifically, prescribed fires and thinning have been shown to be the most effective preservation method .

Prescribed fires remove heavy dry brush and vegetation under trees to help reduce the spread of fire. Without excess fuel, fires are more manageable and smoke emissions decrease . Fires are also less intense, as the structural diversity and patchiness created by prescribed fires moderates the intensity of future fires . Without this effort, fires will ultimately burn hotter, longer, and farther.

Thinning removes the majority of dead or diseased trees/vegetation . This practice focuses on protecting the oldest and healthiest trees while creating a diverse set of natural features in the forest that are essential for regeneration. These efforts, when used together, protect habitats and mitigate high-severity fires.

Economic & Social Impacts

Forest fires cause massive amounts of damage to forests and impact surrounding communities. When forest fires become wildfires, public safety can be threatened and homes/property can become damaged or destroyed. In the US alone, more than 70,000 communities and 44 million homes are at risk . In the last ten years, 35,000 structures were destroyed by wildfires , and fires caused over $21.9 billion in property damage in 2020 alone.

Proper fire management and protection are essential for protecting at-risk communities. For example, the 2002 Hayman fire in Denver, Colorado burned over 137,000 acres and resulted in a total cost of $207 million , of which only 20 percent was used for fire suppression .

Following the fire, it was found that there was a lack of political will for forest fire regulation and government intervention – only 400 acres were mitigated each year before the fire. Since then, efforts have increased, and more than 12,000 acres are mitigated each year. New management practices have also been implemented to help prevent another disaster.

Arguments Against Forest Fire Management

Let Nature Run Its Course

Forest fires can be extremely destructive; however, they are often natural processes that provide many benefits to the environment. In some instances, forest fires are prescribed to bring nutrients and health back into the forest and to prevent larger, more damaging, uncontrollable fires .

Over time, large amounts of dead plants and forest debris can pile up on the forest floor , preventing organisms within the soil from accessing nutrients and choking out smaller or new plants, making them unable to grow. Fires can burn up this layer and release valuable nutrients stored within the litter while simultaneously revealing the soil before. Alongside this, the forest canopy also can become extremely overgrown, which prevents sunlight from reaching the forest floor. Fires can take back this canopy, allowing for sunlight to stimulate new growth.

Fires also increase soil fertility , as burned material returns more quickly to the soil than if they were to naturally decay. Some plants even require fire to assist in their life cycle. Seeds from some pine tree species require fire to break down their pitch covers for the seeds to be released. Other plants, like lilies, require fire for seed germination. Fires can also help rid invasive plants and animals from the forest that cause harm.

Over-Management Causes Damage

At one time, the goal of forest management and fire fighting was to prevent fires entirely. However, the direct result of this aggressive practice was overgrown forests that became a major contributor to massive, catastrophic fires . Smaller fires started by natural conditions are typically beneficial to the health of the forest by burning debris or diseased trees. Preventing or extinguishing these beneficial fires can lead to the accumulation of dry debris , so it’s generally better to let smaller fires run their course to protect the forest from bigger fires in the future.

Logging can also accelerate forest fires. When areas are logged, infant trees are usually replanted on top of the land. After 10 to 15 years, this new growth has a 70 percent chance of forest canopy fires , significantly higher than the 10 percent chance associated with old-growth forests. In fact, it takes 30-plus years for the increased risk of fires to decrease. The lack of canopy when logged lets too much sunlight into the forest, which dries the young plants and soil, increases wind speed , and creates more favourable conditions for a fire to spread.

Polluting Waterways & Affecting Aquatic Life

Fire fighting techniques usually involve the use of fire retardants and water to stop the spread of flames. Though this technique usually contains and extinguishes fires, the aftermath can cause many problems for vegetation, wildlife, and water supplies.

After a fire, the retardants, which are highly toxic to aquatic species, make their way into sensitive aquatic and terrestrial habitats . For example, most salmon that were exposed to less than 1 percent of the strength of the chemicals used, died, and those who did survive died weeks later due to damaged gills .

The Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics has found that Forest Service has violated the Clean Water Act in the United States. More than 100 million gallons of fire retardants were used without permits over the last 10 years, which may have affected 57 threatened species and 32 other aquatic species. The Forest Service’s use of retardants is ongoing and increasing, which ultimately puts more waters and species at risk .

Fighting Fire with Fire – And Proper Management

Fire management can be an invaluable resource that can be used to maintain forest health and help mitigate catastrophic fires. However, over-management and the use of pollutant chemicals can do more harm than good. In addition, fires provide many benefits to forests and are a part of many biological life cycles. Fire management should be used to mitigate and protect areas; however, the benefits of fires should be realized, and nature should be left to run its course when possible.

Global Shipping

Wed, 17 May 2023 19:10:57 GMT

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Shipping by Sea

Global shipping is a part of a massive supply chain that puts products into the hands of consumers. Though some goods can be moved long distances by air, 90 percent of traded goods are transported via sea. More than 11 billion tons of goods , including clothes, grains, cars, and oil, are carried around the world every year. The industry includes global networks of fleets, ports, tankers, and containers, which connect the world and allow countries, companies, and individuals to access goods produced far away from where they live.

Industry Overview

Significant Routes

While there are thousands of shipping routes that connect locations around the world, several of them are extremely important and highly trafficked. With more than 182,000 vessels passing through it each year, the English Channel, connecting the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, is the world’s busiest sea route. The Strait of Malacca sees 83,000 vessels each year, and around 40 percent of the world's trade passes through it.

In terms of importance, the Panama Canal is essential to connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. This artificial seaway reduces transit time by 8,000 miles or 67 days. Other major routes include the Amazon River, the St. Lawrence River, the Volga-Baltic, and the Danish Straits.

Top Countries & Companies

Some countries dominate global shipping in terms of carrying capacity. Greece ranks number one , with Greek cargo ships accounting for 364 million Deadweight Tons (DWT) of capacity, or roughly 17.8 percent of the world’s total capacity. Greece is also home to the largest private shipping empire, Angelicoussis Shipping Group.

Japan is second, with 233 million DWT equating to 11.4 percent of the world’s capacity. Japan is home to Ocean Network Express (ONE), which is ranked in the top ten of all companies in the industry. China follows closely in third, with 228 million DWT or about 11.2 percent of the world’s capacity. China also has the world’s largest seaport in Shanghai and is home to the world’s largest shipping company – China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO).

Benefits of Global Shipping

Capacity & Fewer Product Restrictions

The biggest benefit of shipping by sea is that cargo ships have a large capacity , making them especially suited to oversized and heavy cargo or commodities such as oil, gases, and grains. Cargo containers are available in two sizes – 20-foot, with around 28,000kg of capacity , and 40-foot, with just over 26,000kg of capacity. Typically, cargo ships can carry 21,000 20-foot containers , which equates to 546 million kilograms of freight on each ship. In addition, product tankers can carry 70,000 to 1,345,000 barrels of gasoline , and between 310,000 to 550,000 barrels of crude oil.

In some cases, airfreight may be an alternative to sea freight. However, planes are limited in how much weight they can carry, and there are many product restrictions for air freight that makes it unsuitable for goods such as gases, flammables, magnetic substances, and more. These restrictions are not as limiting for sea freight, which makes it easier to ship items like electronics, chemicals , and other potentially hazardous or heavy products.

Low Transit Costs

Though the actual rate of shipping something by sea depends on the weight, value, and destination of the goods, shipping by sea is generally the most cost-effective way to transport goods over long distances. Typically, ocean freight costs between $2.00 - $4.00 per kilogram . At these rates, a 20-foot container would cost between $56,000 - $112,000, while a 40-foot container would cost between $52,000 - $104,000. Though that seems very expensive, the alternative is significantly more.

Airfreight, by comparison, averages around $2.50 - $8.00/kg . In general, this makes shipments of more than 500 kilograms too expensive for most products. For example, shipping a 900kg box from China to the USA would cost $1,500 by sea, but $8,000 or more by air.

That being said, air freight can still be used to transport delicate goods. In fact, 99 percent of pharmaceuticals are transported via air .

Globalization and Facilitation of Trade

Domestic and international economies greatly benefit from traded goods. Goods manufactured in other countries can usually be produced for much cheaper, which ultimately increases the discretionary income (income you have to spend after necessities are paid) of local consumers.

Trade is also highly specialized. If countries chose to produce all goods at home, this would lead to fewer economies of scale and ultimately higher consumer prices. Though there’s no doubt that buying local is better for the environment as it reduces transportation emissions, supports local jobs/companies, and mitigates the risk of foreign dependency, no country in recent decades has achieved economic success without being open to the rest of the world.

Throughout the world, nations that are rich in natural resources and/or produced goods can transport these goods to other countries. This process can often add value that drives prosperity and enables development . In today’s diverse and distributed economy, it is simply not possible or practical to solely produce all goods within a single country and maintain economic wealth. The world is dependent on trade to spread this wealth and further develop nations , and global shipping plays a massive role in enabling this movement of goods.

Drawbacks of Global Shipping

Transit Time & Hazards

Transporting goods throughout the world by water takes a considerable amount of time. Many factors, including distance, route, and season, can all affect the transit time. On average, sea shipping can take 20-45 days or more . Looking at average transit times in 2021, shipping a container between China and the USA can take anywhere between 35 days to as many as 80 days. On this route, traveling via the Suez Canal takes 41 days , whereas the route through the Panama Canal, which is more expensive, is only 35 days.

In comparison, express air can take 1-3 days , while regular air can take 5-10 days, making it significantly faster. However, when considering the limitations that air freight has, and the increased cost, accepting the longer transit time of sea freight is the most reasonable choice for many different goods.

Another downside of sea freight is the potential hazards that vessels face. Sea cargo is more likely to get damaged or destroyed in transit as it takes much longer and vessels are more likely to move on the route. Cargo has also been known to fall off ships. However, out of the 120 million containers shipped each year, only around 550 of them are lost at sea. Piracy is a potential threat to losing cargo, however, these dangers are primarily only present in the Horn of Africa, Gulf of Guinea, and the Malacca Straits.

Pandemic Supply Chain Disruptions

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the existing challenges of the global transportation and logistics industries and has shown that any disruptions can present long-term complications. In the first six months of 2020, more than 1,000 container ship voyages were canceled . Due to cancellations, the demand for containers decreased , which resulted in an insufficient supply to meet the eventual increase in consumer demand experienced during the latter half of 2020. The container shortage resulted in the industry operating at maximum capacity , further increasing turnaround times in ports and creating a severe bottleneck.

These supply chain blockages have hindered economic recovery and have ultimately led to increased consumer prices , in part due to the increase in freight rates. Small developing island countries are expected to face the largest increase at 7.5 percent , while the least developed countries will see a 2.2 percent increase. For the developed world, prices are expected to increase by 1.5 percent.

Industry Emissions and Environmental Damage

Global shipping continues to be a large contributor to global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and these emissions are only set to increase as trade and the transport of goods continues to grow. The industry currently emits around 940 million tonnes of CO2 annually, which accounts for 2.5 percent of total global GHG emissions. According to the IMO , these emissions, under regular operating conditions, could increase between 50 percent and 250 percent by 2050.

Most emissions from these ships are generated through the burning of fuel. Each container ship requires around 63,000 gallons of marine fuel per day when traveling at speeds between 23-28 mph. If speeds were decreased by 10 percent, emissions from fuel could drop by 30 percent. Though this solution would cause the need for more ships to offset the longer sailing times, the environmental savings would be significant.

One of the largest commodities traded oversea is crude oil, which typically makes up 25 percent of all maritime trade . Shipping oil overseas has introduced the risk of oil spills, which are extremely harmful to ocean ecosystems, neighboring nations who are likely to experience polluted beaches, and the fishing industry. On top of minor spills that happen when fueling vessels, oil tankers add 3.5 to 6 million metric tons of oil to oceans each year.

Finally, the noise of large ships can disrupt marine life, and animals can be injured or killed by ships and their engines.

A Critical Part of Everyday Life

Sea freight has proven to be the most cost-effective and efficient way to transport large volumes of goods over long distances. However, it doesn’t come without drawbacks. Industry emissions are cause for concern as the world moves toward greener technologies, and the resiliency of the industry was put to the test due to the pandemic, which shined a bright light on its existing challenges and lack of resiliency.

However, global shipping has transformed the way that economies and countries operate. The introduction of sea freight has given countries a chance to export their excess resources and take advantage of others’ competitive advantages. Overall, this industry provides copious amounts of value to people and countries right around the world.

Pros and Cons of the Metaverse

Wed, 17 May 2023 19:08:54 GMT

The Implications of the Latest Phase of the Internet

Over the past decade, computer technology has evolved exponentially. It has made our lives easier, and at the same time, catapulted us thousands of years into the future. Many ideas that were once science fiction are now a reality. The metaverse may very well be the next step in the evolution of the internet. However, as we swiftly progress toward the next paradigm of computing, we must understand the benefits and drawbacks that the metaverse will bring.

What Is the “Metaverse”?

The term "metaverse" was first coined by Neal Stephenson in his 1992 science fiction novel Snow Crash, in which he imagined lifelike avatars meeting in realistic 3D buildings and other virtual reality scenarios. Since then, the metaverse has become a catch-all phrase for any shared digital space.

Today, Stephenson’s fictional world is growing closer to reality, as the metaverse is now a term used to describe a shared virtual space that is made up of multiple technological elements, including augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and video. Some experts describe it as a 3D model of the internet that would exist parallel to our physical world and would enable day-to-day activities such as work, gaming and learning to take place through a virtual, immersive experience.

In the truest sense of the term, the metaverse would be accessible through a single gateway and each user would have an avatar that they could use to interact with others and live out their digital lives in this virtual world.

Although we have seen glimpses of a world such as this, the true metaverse is not here yet. We are still in the early, building phases of the metaverse, and, as a result, there is no single definition of the metaverse because nobody knows what it will look like. Just like it would have been difficult to describe and predict the internet as it exists today back in the 1970’s, it’s difficult to predict what the metaverse will evolve into in the coming decades.

The Elements of the Metaverse

Generally speaking, the metaverse is made up of a combination of virtual reality (VR) , which is characterized by persistent virtual environments that exist even when one is offline, combined with augmented reality (AR), which blends features of both the digital and physical worlds. It includes a digital economy in which users can design, buy, and sell products, and is interoperable, allowing users to move virtual objects, like clothes or cars, from one platform to another, under the more idealized conceptions.

The Metaverse Today

The idea of the metaverse gained international attention in 2021, with Facebook’s announcement of the rebrand of its parent company to “Meta”. Meta’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, also stated that they would spend $10 billion dollars and hire 10,000 employees in Europe to build a metaverse. Meta currently has a line of products called Horizon Worlds , a social VR application that allows users to connect in highly immersive 3D worlds. They have also developed hardware that enables users to enter and interact within their Horizon communities interactively, such as their Oculus Quest 2 product. Horizon Worlds' monthly user base has expanded by 10x in three months to 300,000 people since it was launched in the US and Canada in early December, showing there is an appetite for immersive virtual worlds from the general public.

Meta is not the only company currently investing in building the metaverse. Microsoft has built Mesh for Microsoft teams, which is intended to help organizations and consumers boost remote collaboration and deliver immersive training and communication solutions. Microsoft accomplished this by creating a virtual space for real-time collaboration that participants can access via their mixed reality glasses - HoloLens 2, virtual reality (VR) headsets, smartphones, tablets, or PCs.

Microsoft has been investing aggressively into metaverse technology, with their recent acquisition of gaming company, Activision, which owns popular games Call of Duty and World of Warcraft, in a deal worth $68.7 billion . Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella stated they made this move because this deal would provide “ the building blocks for the metaverse ”. Other companies like Zoom, Alphabet, and Google also have metaverse products in the works, although no official announcements have been made as of yet.

The metaverse industry is currently set to become an $800 billion market by 2024 , so it is no wonder that several tech giants have been making large investments in this space.

The Next Paradigm of Computing

Although the metaverse is still in its early stages, with only a few platforms available for general use, its virtual world promises endless possibilities for employment, gaming, social interaction, and economic growth. Some other potential use cases for the metaverse are the ability for users to purchase and monetize real estate, create games and other VR experiences, shop for real and virtual products, attend concerts, and much more.

While the metaverse promises a lot, it is yet to be seen if companies will be able to work together to create this interconnected 3D virtual reality as a lot of advancements still need to occur. As various companies take strides towards creating the metaverse, it is important to understand the pros and cons that this technology will bring.

The Case for the Metaverse

Facilitates Remote Work

Businesses across the globe have had to adapt to a new way of working due to the coronavirus pandemic. However, working remotely sacrifices the shared connection that people experience with in-person work. According to a report by User Guiding, remote hiring, training, and onboarding of new hires were employers’ largest recruitment challenges amidst the coronavirus pandemic, with 49.7 percent of businesses stating employee engagement as the greatest challenge.

The applications of the metaverse for workplace connection would facilitate a better connection between employees and would allow managers to effectively communicate with their teams while reading their body language through virtual interactions. Furthermore, by keeping track of team productivity through their distinct avatars, employers may better handle issues such as productivity time theft at work.

Decreased Carbon Emissions

It is also possible that emissions in some aspects of our lives will be mitigated by the metaverse. The metaverse is designed to be a home for a lot of the events and activities that currently take place in-person, and by moving a lot of these events online, there is the potential to significantly lower carbon emissions.

By organizing concerts in virtual environments, for example, environmental expenses associated with travel—particularly air travel—will be decreased. Commuting emissions may also be reduced, as office premises will be housed in the metaverse. As a result, net emissions can decline and the metaverse's overall environmental impact will be reduced.

Improvements to Healthcare Services

According to a survey of 398 healthcare professionals that was performed after the pandemic, about 20 percent of patient appointments will still be conducted via telemedicine, compared to 2 percent before the COVID-19 outbreak. The metaverse could usher in the next stage of telemedicine, better facilitating physical and mental health treatments where patients can be diagnosed and treated with the help of VR and AR technologies. It could also facilitate interactive medical learning as medical education would become more engaging with the use of technology, especially where hands-on skills are essential.

The Case Against the Metaverse

Privacy & Security

Even though businesses and organizations continue to improve their IT security systems, data privacy and security have long been a concern for users of any online environment. Submerging into the metaverse will necessitate the creation of new security procedures to keep up with the metaverse's ever-expanding nature.

There is also the concern about the companies behind the metaverse collecting a large amount of data about their users, posing security and privacy concerns. Furthermore, this information has the potential to be gathered, sold, and utilized for intrusive internet advertising, identity theft, and other cyber-related crimes. Meta, specifically, has been the target of investigations all over the world for alleged internal policies that downplay or ignore how their social media platforms have harmed their users' interests, and these concerns could be inherited into its future platforms.

Legal Ambiguity

The metaverse is bound to bring many users together, making it a terrific location to connect and exchange information. However, it also puts users at risk if there are no regulations governing its space. Therefore, identifying jurisdiction, enacting regulations, and pinpointing who has the power to enforce laws will be crucial in ensuring that the virtual world is safe and secure for all users.

Potential for Addiction

The metaverse could be highly addicting as it would provide an alternative to reality. High internet users were more likely to be socially isolated, according to a 2018 study published in the American Journal of Educational Research . Given the metaverse's potential, it could exacerbate this problem and lead to the cascading effects of anxiety and depression. Builders of the metaverse must incorporate digital well-being tools to prevent users from suffering from addiction.

The Verdict

The metaverse has the potential to forever alter how we work, play, and socialize. It has the potential to facilitate remote work, decrease carbon emissions, and improve healthcare services. However, to ensure the well-being of all as we move towards this future, we need to ensure that concerns around privacy, legal issues, and addiction are addressed.

Voluntary Payment Platforms

Wed, 17 May 2023 15:29:22 GMT

What are the pros and cons?

Voluntary payment-funded companies are online platforms that allow users to access content for free and voluntarily ask users to make donations to the company. A great example of this is Wikipedia , which is free to use but prompts users for donations to keep the site running. Other forms of voluntary payment-funded companies include platforms that give creators a chance to monetize exclusive content, while also providing free content on other platforms such as Patreon and Buy Me a Coffee .

At the beginning of 2020, the number of users and creators grew 40 percent - with just over 6 million individual patrons on Patreon. Users are enjoying exclusive content from their favorite creators which can help support them and enable them to create future content.

In the last couple of years, voluntary payment-funded companies have grown in popularity due to the COVID-19 pandemic among other reasons.

This article examines the benefits and potential drawbacks of Voluntary Payment Platforms and if this business model is viable for creators and other online businesses.

Advantages of Voluntary Payment Platforms

Predictable Income

Patreon is a frequently used platform by content creators, such as YouTubers, Influencers, and Podcasters as a monthly membership tool to bring exclusive content to fans. Patreon allows subscribers or fans to financially support their favorite creators, in some cases for as little as $1 per month. The site features a tiered membership system , in which creators can set different tires for more exclusive content. Out of the 200,000 creators on Patreon, an estimated $2 billion has been earned among creators. Having the option to monetize content gives creators a steady flow of income that is predictable and scheduled. Payment is also very flexible, with the option to view balances on the site and disperse earnings whenever they want.

One of the most popular creators , The Tim Dillon Show , has a total of 43,521 patrons and earns CA$275,510 per month. With two pricing tires, Skull and Bones at $7 per month, and The Rothschilds at $27 per month, the show provides options for users to choose which benefits they want to receive in exchange for a monthly fee. The Tim Dillion Show operates a YouTube channel and uses Patreon as a means for a more stable revenue stream. It’s easy to see that from the 429 thousand subscribers on YouTube, almost 10% of that audience is a member of Patreon.

Creating a Strong Online Community

Having a voluntary payment-funded platform creates a closer-knit community to which only your biggest fans would choose to subscribe. This helps build a stronger relationship with your audience and allows creators to invest more time into tailoring content to what they want. Having access to your top followers and being able to strike conversations about content will result in new content that better serves the audience .

Growing a committed audience on such a platform gives creators a way to gain filtered feedback that comes from trusted voices. On public platforms, spam and online trolls take up the comment section which can lead to frustration and useless feedback.

Using one of these platforms also frees up time for creators as they don’t have to spend significant time booking brand deals or finding sponsors to support their content. If your online audience is large enough, you may be able to survive financially by just using Patreon or Buy Me a Cup of Coffee. This leaves more time for developing content and expanding your online community.

Customer Benefits

Customers, or patrons, reap many benefits when accessing content from their favorite creators. The biggest benefit is seen through early access to content, with 37% of creators using this as the main feature for their patrons. In addition to early access, patrons can also subscribe for exclusive content , which is usually what drives them from YouTube to Patreon. They would also gain access to a library of content, watch parties, private Discord servers, and more.

Creators who have higher tiered memberships may offer merch to members , which Patreon offers as an add-on for 3% more per month . It’s popular enough that 15% of creators offer this package, which can be one-time, time-based, or recurring merch. Merchandise can include anything from branded stickers to pins to clothing. All creators have varying benefits for single-tiered or multi-tiered memberships that are specific to their content.

Disadvantages of Voluntary Payment Platforms

Platform Concerns

Platforms, such as Patreon and others, which offer tired membership options can create overhead and management issues for creators. With each tier of membership , more exclusive content or rewards are required. On top of typically running a YouTube channel and other social platforms, providing monetized content creates significantly more work for creators. There is added strain of providing more exclusive content for higher tiers and making sure that patrons find enough value in the content.

Another issue with running a site like Patreon is that success on the platform is tied to having other platforms and online communities. Patreon, or Buy Me a Coffee, are platforms that simply manage recurring payments. It’s the creator’s job to move fans from other, usually free, platforms to the voluntary payment-funded company in hopes of converting them to a member. However, generating a community on a site like Buy Me a Coffee ultimately undermines the other communities the creator has made on other platforms.

Membership Challenges

The membership business model can be difficult to sell , especially when most of the time fans can find their favorite creators for free, like on YouTube. Many users watch dozens or even hundreds of creators on YouTube without paying anything, so being a member on Patreon for a single creator takes commitment. However, fans may find the monthly subscription intimidating, with some feeling pressured to continue the membership after the first month.

If some users find that they are unhappy with their membership or forgot to cancel, getting a refund is challenging. Since each creator oversees their page, users must contact the creator directly . They then must wait for a review by the creator and a possible refund may be issued. This can be frustrating for users and may deter them from another membership opportunity with other creators.

High Fixed & Variable Fees

Creators pay a percentage of donations to Patreon as a fee to operate on the platform. Patreon offers three pricing tires , Lite, Pro, and Premium, in which they take 5%, 8%, and 12%, of monthly income, respectively. If a creator is just starting, the Lite versions would likely be enough. However, it offers very limited capabilities and any sort of growth on the site will eventually force the creator to upgrade to the Pro or Premium plan.

With the high variable fees from Patreon, creators can lose hundreds or thousands of dollars per month. On top of that, payment processing fees are high , at 3.2% plus CA$0.35 per payment over $3 and 5% plus CA$0.10 under $3. This fee is fully incurred by the user, which adds to their already generous donation.

The same can be said for Buy Me a Coffee, which takes 5% per transaction for access to all site features. Buy Me a Coffee also doesn’t have payment fees , which reduces the cost for customers and likely increases the chance of membership. Overall, the creators miss out on a significant portion of their revenue and members are required to pay more to the platform handling the transaction.

Is The Voluntary Payment Model a Viable Way To Do Business?

Voluntary payment-funded companies are a great resource for online creators to gain a steady stream of income, connect with their audiences and grow their platforms. They also provide many benefits to users, allowing them to voluntarily support their favorite creators and be rewarded with a series of benefits.

Some issues arise with high, unavoidable fees for both creators and users, which provide revenue for the platforms. Overall, this business model is viable for creators with existing audiences and a demand for more content from fans. However, without a sizable following, creators may find it difficult to turn a profit using this model.

Traditional and Online Investing

Wed, 17 May 2023 15:26:24 GMT

How do the two measure up?

The world of investing has changed a lot in recent years. A little over a decade ago, most investments could only be made by a real person, such as a traditional broker at a brick-and-mortar bank or fiduciary agency. However, today there are more options available to investors than ever before. One could continue using a trusted financial advisor at a bank or could choose to manage their investments themselves through an online brokerage or robo-advisor.

As online and self-serve investing platforms become more popular, how do they compare to traditional investment banks and financial institutions? Both options have their benefits and drawbacks, so let’s look at what they each offer.

What are Traditional Investments?

There are two main options available in today’s current investment landscape – traditional and online investing. In either case, an investor works with a brokerage, which is a company that operates as a middleman between a buyer and seller to facilitate a financial transaction . These brokers are paid in commissions or fees usually charged once the transaction has been completed successfully.

In the case of traditional investing, investors work with a full-service brokerage that provides a professional financial adviser who is tasked with managing all a client’s investment decisions while providing ongoing advice and support. Full-service brokers will execute trades for their clients and complete the purchase and sale of various investment products, such as stocks, bonds, and ETFs, while offering additional financial services. In 2020, the top three full-service brokerages in Canada were Assante, National Bank, and HollisWealth .

Due to the highly personalized nature of the relationship between a client and a traditional broker, the costs to use full-service brokerages tend to be quite high. A traditional trade can cost anywhere between $12.95 to $29.95 , or more on average. Traditional brokers also earn commissions on each trade that they make for their clients, which means the less scrupulous ones may be incentivized to make more trades for their customers. While this is rare, it is important for those that opt to work with traditional brokers to ensure they have the final say over the investments made with their account.

What are Online Investments?

Unlike traditional investments that are managed by a dedicated advisor, online investments are self-directed by individual investors using online platforms that enable them to make their own trading decisions. These platforms are also called “discount brokerages” as they usually charge lower commissions due to the do-it-yourself nature of their platforms. Canada’s most popular online brokerages are Questrade, National Bank Direct Brokerage, and TD Direct Investing . While online brokers may provide resources to help investors make the best financial decisions for themselves, they don’t usually provide personalized investment advice or perform analysis for their clients.

Another branch of online brokerages which are quickly gaining popularity, especially among customers in their late 20s and 30s , are robo-advisors. Robo-advisors, or automated investment advisory platforms, are a relatively new type of digital financial advisor that provides low-cost investment management services carried out by algorithms with minimum human participation .

Interestingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in online investing in Canada. With many people being stuck at home since the onset of the pandemic, trading has emerged as a popular pastime for many Canadians. Staying at home, either as a result of lockdowns, quarantine measures, or working-from-home circumstances, has given Canadians the time to take control of their portfolios. Wealthsimple and WealthBar are two of Canada’s most popular robo-advisors and both have reported experiencing double-digit growth in users since the pandemic began .

Why Choose Traditional Investment Methods

Personal Broker Relationship

A personal relationship with a broker is a large part of what investors pay for when they engage with a traditional brokerage. In addition to managing their clients’ portfolios, brokers also provide clients with personalized counsel and advice, while getting to know their clients and their circumstances over time. This makes traditional investing a great choice for investors who value this kind of dedicated relationship and customer service.

With online investing, clients rarely form any kind of relationship with an individual broker when they trade, although brokers or sales assistants are typically available to online investors who seek help. However, this service may come at an additional cost.

Personalized Investment Advice

When working with a traditional brokerage, investors have access to a professional broker who is licensed and trained to conduct trades on their behalf . This means investors can consult with their broker to assess and discuss the pros and cons of making a certain trade before it occurs, providing a safety net protecting the investor from making unnecessarily risky or bad investments.

Although there is never a guarantee when it comes to the success of an investment, a broker acts as a well-informed third-party who has the knowledge and experience to help to protect their clients’ investments, to the best of their ability. They can also advise on the best approach based on a client’s goals, such as whether they plan to purchase a house in the near future. This setup is ideal for new investors and those who do not have the time to research the pros and cons of each trade they would like to make.

Online investments, on the other hand, do not provide the same level of protection, which could lead those with little investment experience to make risky investment decisions if they don’t conduct the necessary research.

Additional Services

Full-service brokerages act as a one-stop-shop for their clients, offering additional services such as wealth management, portfolio management, tax and estate planning, as well as research and advisory services, among other things. This allows them to have the full picture of their client's financial standing, helping them to offer holistic financial advice for their clients.

This is more convenient for clients as they only need to go to one person for all their financial needs.

Why Choose Online Investment Methods

Lower Costs

One of the most significant differences between online and traditional investing is the cost. The cost of a traditional trade is usually significantly higher than the cost of online trade, due to the high-touch nature of the client-broker relationship. However, since online brokerages offer more of a DIY approach with less contact with brokers, the cost of online trading is often lower, with online trades costing as little as $3.95 . When it comes to robo-advisors, annual costs for these electronic advisers are typically around 0.5 percent of assets under management, compared to 1 percent to 2 percent charged by many traditional advisors .

Online brokerages also tend to have much lower required minimum opening balances than traditional brokers. It is common for traditional brokerages to prefer to work with clients who have a few thousand dollars available to invest, and some brokerages require at least $5,000 in your account for them to accept a client. On the other hand, online brokers do not have the same requirements to open a brokerage account, with minimum balances as low as $500 – or even less for robo-advisors.

These savings allow investors to keep more of their money, making online investments an attractive choice for those who would like to start by investing small amounts of money.

Financial Education

To compensate for the absence of a dedicated investment advisor for their clients, online brokerages usually provide large information libraries for their customers, including up-to-date charts that illustrate trading data and trends. Wealthsimple , for example, has an extensive resource library that covers topics such as personal finance 101, an investing masterclass, as well as tax education.

Most online brokerages allow customers to customize their login pages to allow them to easily see the most current performance of the stocks they are interested in. Many traditional brokerages now provide similar services, however, since customers pay higher brokerage fees, they often expect the broker to conduct the study and make recommendations for them.

Increased Flexibility

Traditional brokerages are usually open from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, which are the same hours as the stock market. For a traditional brokerage client to relay their trading instructions to their broker, they will usually need to schedule an appointment, either online, over the phone, or in person, which takes time. Time is money in the stock market and a delay might be costly.

Conversely, the reaction time for online trading is extremely fast — one can complete a trade in the blink of an eye without needing to go through another party to complete their trades. This flexibility makes online trading a great option for those who value the speed of transactions. It is important to note that many traditional brokerages now offer extended service hours to compete with online brokerages. However, there may be additional fees involved, though this is becoming less typical as they strive to stay competitive.

The Bottom Line

Although many investors cherish the traditional broker-client connection, industry changes have driven an increasing number of clients to switch from traditional to online investing. Both forms of brokerages have advantages; and picking which one to use is a matter of weighing the features and benefits each has to offer. Inexperienced and high net worth investors may opt to deal with a broker, whilst individuals with investing experience who value lower trading costs may prefer to do so on their own online.

Regardless of the approach you take, there is always a risk when making an investment. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose, and always make investments that align with your own personal goals and financial situation.

When Forests Burn

Wed, 17 May 2023 15:18:57 GMT

Climate Change vs Other Factors

Is climate change causing the majority of forest fires, or are there other factors that continue to be relevant?

Forest fires are one of the most formidable forces of nature with the power to both replenish and devastate ecosystems. The sheer scale of forest fires can be immense: we’ve seen them take out thousands of hectares of territory. But when can we attribute a forest fire to climate change, and when can we not?

Has climate change perhaps been blamed for a major forest fire, yet some other factors or confluence of factors were leading reasons? What might be other factors that cause forest fires?

When Climate Change Causes Forest Fires

The scientific literature makes one thing clear: climate change has certainly contributed to or exacerbated forest fires in recent times, including recent mega fire events in 2019-20 in south-eastern Australia and in 2016 in Alberta, Canada . Two seemingly divergent factors that arise from changes in climate include the obvious (temperatures) and less obvious (beetles). Both are worth exploring.

Global Warming and Forest Fires

Global warming is the gradual warming of the Earth due to the mostly increase of carbon in the planet’s atmosphere. It leads to increasingly hot, dry conditions in parts of the world and is why NASA refers to “hot and dry” as being the watchwords for major fires. This is especially prevalent in those regions with already hot, dry seasonal climates.

According to the Arlington-based Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), one of the world’s leading environmental think tanks, climate variability is increasing the drying of organic matter in forests, thus increasing the fuel capacity in forests . The C2ES believes this explains the increase in the number of large fires in the western U.S. since 1984. It explains why fire seasons in the U.S. have become longer and more extreme, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists .

A 2021 Australian study by Abram, Henley, Gupta et al. declared that, “The bushfires that burnt across southeastern Australia’s temperate forests in the 2019/20 fire season were unprecedented in their scale, intensity and impacts.” That momentous fire season, known as Australia’s ‘Black Summer,’ was widely reported as being mostly due to the effects of global warming, with the Canberra-based Australian National University (ANU) calling it “ a climate wake-up call ” for the country.

The statistics clearly prove the surge in the number of forest fires in recent years. Doug Morton, chief of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA 's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, observed that, “Where warming and drying climate has increased the risk of fires, we’ve seen an increase in burning.” Statistics provided by the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) vividly show that the five-worst years for forest fires in the U.S. since 1960 all occurred within the past 14 years.

Even more concerning is the role of increased fires leading to even more emissions in the atmosphere and, thus, contributing to climate change.

Forest Fires and Pine Beetles

Hot, dry conditions are not the only climate change-related factors that contribute to the huge fires. Enter the mountain pine beetle. There are over 600 species of beetle in North America, but most of them thrive on dying or dead trees. Not the mountain pine beetle - it infests living trees , most specifically a host of pine species, including jack, limber, lodgepole, ponderosa, western white, and whitebark pine trees.

Natural Resources Canada has estimated that an outbreak of the beetle since the early 1990s has affected more than 18 million hectares of forest in British Columbia, with a total cumulative loss of an estimated 752 million cubic metres, or 58%, of commercial pine in the Canadian province.

Many trees, already stressed due to increased periods of drought, are vulnerable to the relentless surge in the beetles. The result is more dead trees, which contributes to a heavier ‘fuel load’ in many already-dry forests. According to the U.S. Forest Service, the massive Creek Fire that raged in northern California in late 2019 and burned more than 309,033 acres of land was 80 to 90% caused by nearly 150 million trees that had been killed by mountain pine beetles. It’s worth noting that this beetle is not an invasive species to North America - it’s just much more pervasive and thus destructive, courtesy of milder winters and warmer summers.

180: Other Factors to Consider

When Other Factors Cause Forest Fires

There are other factors that cause or exacerbate forest fires. There have been instances in recent years in which media and political attention relating to mass fire events has been so intently focused on global warming and climate change, that the overreaching perception has been that only climate change-related factors cause fires.

One such mass fire event was the Black Summer of 2019-20 that devastated swathes of Australia, which was widely reported by local media as being overwhelming evidence of climate change, or was at least mostly framed as such. However, the country’s public inquiry into the Black Summer, published as the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, released in October 2020, found that other factors, particularly government inaction and a lack of coordinated fire and emergency management systems between and within the country’s states and territories, also contributed significantly to the natural disaster.

Direct human-caused factors, including arson, camping and fire mismanagement also contribute to major forest fires.

Direct Human-Caused Forest Fires

The vast majority of forest fires are directly caused by humans, whether purposefully or accidentally. Such was the finding of a monumental 2017 study undertaken by researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Earth Lab. Of 1.5 million fires logged in the database, more than 1.2 million (or 84%) of fires recorded were caused by the following:

debris burning > 29%
arson > 21%
equipment use > 11%
campfires and picnics > 5%

National Geographic made the astounding claim in 2018 that up to 95% of forest and other wildfires in California were caused by humans.

The venerable periodical stated how, “High crimes [i.e. arson] and celebrations are a few of the ways that [California] residents have sparked a blaze.” It cited and named arsonists who were arrested for starting the fires that became the ‘Holy Fire’ in southern California and the ‘Cranston Fire’ in the state’s interior Riverside County. Arson was also cited by Russian officials as being a leading cause of the mass fires that ravaged the Irkutsk region of Siberia in 2019, with illegal loggers blamed for having intentionally starting fires to conceal their activities.

It isn’t just arson that is the focus of authorities’ attention regarding wildfires. In 2014 in California, the state hardest-hit by runaway or mass fires, the California Fire Department, U.S. Forest Service, and National Park Service created an educational campaign called “One Less Spark” .

The U.S. Department of the Interior provides a useful classification of nine causes of wildfires , eight of which are human-caused (the ninth being lightening). The classification is used for reporting purposes for the Wildland Fire Management Information (WFMI) system and classifies the eight human-caused fire types as being:

Campfire
Smoking, e.g. cigarettes, matches, etc.
Fire use, e.g. debris burning
Incendiary, e.g. arson or unauthorized burning
Equipment, e.g. from vehicles or machinery
Railroads
Juveniles, e.g. fireworks, ‘fire play’
Miscellaneous, e.g. burning buildings or structures, blasting, coal seams, etc.

The above list further highlights the fact that many forest fires continue to be human-caused, whether maliciously, recklessly or negligently.

Human Fire Mismanagement

A sometimes lesser-acknowledged factor of wild fire is lack of emergency planning and strategic fire risk management by governments and agencies, specifically in countries that have suffered mass fires in recent years, including Canada , Portugal , Greece , and India .

A well-publicized case was the 2019-20 ‘Black Summer’, which eventually caused great embarrassment to its federal government. The Australian Prime Minister , Scott Morrison, who was heavily heckled at various places affected by bushfires, had to admit regret at how his government had handled the crisis. Morrison conceded that planning and reaction on the ground could have been far better and swifter. Indonesian President Joko Widodo also had to admit the failings of his government due to huge forest fires, mostly to clear land for planting, that got out of control in 2019. Widodo admitted that Indonesia’s government “has been negligent - again” regarding poorly managed intentional fire clearing.

Governments can be blamed for not investing adequately in much-needed forest and fire emergency management and response systems, personnel, and equipment.

This was the partial assessment of the Irish Times in its analysis of Australia’s bushfires. It concluded that, additional to climate change and arson as major factors in mass fires, there were three other human-related factors that exacerbated the Australian crisis in particular, namely:

failure to regularly reduce ‘fuel load’ in bush and forests;
the growing lack of skilled fire fighters, as well as ageing fire fighters; and
zoning laws that allowed greater residential penetration into bush lands and forests.

There is another important premise to remember regarding the mismanagement of forests: not all forest fires are bad. Fires serve an important, even crucial role in the regulation and rejuvenation of ecosystems , particularly forests and savannah/grasslands. Too much undergrowth in forests made drier due to climate change becomes easy tinder for both the starting and spread of forest fires. Therefore, the mismanagement of forests can occur due to inadequate or non-existent clearing of forests at risk.

Furthermore, there has also been a tendency by some forest authorities to overreact and immediately put out beneficial, naturally-occurring low-intensity fires . These natural fires are invaluable for removing potential tinder such as underbrush, foliage and other debris, and fallen timber.

In the objective spirit of this article, neither human-caused factors or climate change can be ‘blamed’ for the forest fires that afflict many regions of the world today. In the words of Jim Randerson , an Earth systems scientist at the University of California, Irvine: “Humans and climate together are really the dual factors that are shaping the fires around the world. It's not one or the other.”

Budget Airlines

Wed, 17 May 2023 15:15:43 GMT

Are they worth the low cost?

Budget airlines, or Low-Cost Carriers (LCCs), have become a popular option for those seeking low-cost flights around certain countries or regions. Consumers are drawn to this low-cost model of travel as they want a quick and efficient way to get to their destination and are willing to give up certain travel ‘luxuries’ to save money. One of Europe’s most popular LCCs, Ryanair, charged an average of $40 per ticket , making it an extremely affordable way to travel. Compared to regular carriers, Ryanair saw revenue of $1 billion in 2019 , whereas American Airlines made $2.1 billion .

LCCs are primarily popular in Europe and South-East Asia, with a recent rising in the Americas. The best budget airlines are in Europe, such as Ryanair (Ireland), EasyJet (Ireland), and Pegasus Airlines (Turkey). Other successful airlines include GOL (Brazil), Southwest Airlines (USA), and Flair Airlines, Swoop Airlines, or Porter Airlines (Canada). Though not listed here, there are dozens of more LCCs operating all over the world.

Since the rise of LCCs, the industry competition has only grown, with LCCs capturing a large portion of occupied seats (known as ‘pax’). In Europe alone, 40 percent of pax come from LCCs . Latin America and North America also have high figures, at 36 percent and 32 percent, respectively . Globally , 32 percent of pax come from LCCs. These carriers have captured a significant portion of consumers and are continuing to spread to larger airports, attracting even more popularity.

Advantages of Budget Airlines

Ticket Prices & Operational Costs

Ticket prices are the most competitive factor for airlines and with the introduction of LCCs, the competition is only getting stronger. To keep costs low , LCCs exclude several in-flight services and amenities, don’t include free baggage, or seat selection, and select secondary airports that have lower costs. Overall, a flight between New York’s LaGuardia Airport and LAX would cost around $231 on Southwest , whereas on United the price is anywhere from $400-$900.

Operational costs can be extremely high, considering many airlines have hundreds or thousands of flights. For standard carriers, a 7-hour flight across the Atlantic would cost $72,000, whereas a 2.5-hour LCC flight through Europe would be $12,000. LCCs variable operational cost is around $4,000-$4,700/hour whereas larger aircrafts (>300 seats), cost between $9,000-$10,300/hour. These savings can be passed on to customers in the form of lower ticket prices.

Customizable Travel Experience

The overarching idea of low-cost carriers is that they are a cheaper means of travel. These airlines cut ticket prices down to bare-bones and include only what’s necessary to get you from point A to point B. By excluding services , like one checked bag and free in-flight refreshments, consumers can travel without paying for unnecessary features that don’t require. On typical flights, travellers who don’t check a bag or take advantage of other complimentary services don’t receive any sort of rebate; they simply pay the full price of the ticket.

With LCCs, on the other hand, you pay for exactly what you get . For some, a plane ticket and a personal item are all they require. Even if you require additional services, you can choose exactly what you need and don’t pay for anything more. LCCs are the most cost-effective way to travel , especially when travelling to multiple countries or going away for the weekend.

Fleet Uniformity

LCCs benefit from fleet uniformity . Having common planes makes it easier for maintenance engineers to service aircraft, and training staff on only a few types of planes is also more streamlined. Likewise, the ability to maintain inventory and aircraft availability is improved. Traditional carriers require several sizes of planes for flight size variation, whereas LCC passenger demand doesn’t vary. LCCs typically fly Boeing 737s , which means they can carry around 170 passengers per flight.

Consistent routes that are similar in length let airlines can be more operationally viable . This business model doesn’t work with flights that are variable in length or frequency. Fleet uniformity is extremely cost-effective , and with most LCCs, commonality in their fleets only benefits and sustains their revenue.

However, fleet uniformity comes with a significant flaw. For example, in 2019 Boeing grounded their 737 MAX aircraft, which resulted in Southwest Airlines grounding 34 planes. By solely relying on a single fleet style, any maintenance or other problems could result in a string of flight disruptions.

Disadvantages of Budget Airlines

Comfort & Customer Service

Some comfort and amenities on flights have become standard and are usually included in ticket prices. However, the main strategy to lower prices for LCCs is excluding many ‘complementary’ services such as included checked baggage, in-flight entertainment, and free seat selection. Unlike regular airlines, these carriers don’t have TVs or Wi-Fi onboard, so personal entertainment is up to the traveller. They also don’t offer free in-flight refreshments, typically only water, while some airlines may offer food for an additional fee.

Consumers may also face issues if they miss their flight or require a refund. Typically, these companies don’t offer refunds for missed flights , and processing a refund may be time-consuming and difficult. Many LCCs have also stranded passengers around the world due to cancelled flights and insufficient passenger volumes leading to a lack of funds. In cases where flights were cancelled, getting new tickets was increasingly difficult due to high demand . Some customers have also experienced ‘customer service nightmares’ , with one example of EasyJet closing check-in with 30 percent of passengers still waiting in line.

Ancillary Fees

On top of the decreased included amenities, many services have high hidden fees that, in some cases, are required. Most travellers take carry-ons or checked bags, which can range from $32 to $53 . There are also strict baggage weights and dimensions, and many carriers don’t allow for overweight baggage, as well as fees for seat selection which can make it difficult for groups to sit together. Travellers can end up paying anywhere from $4 to $40 to choose their seats .

Many airlines will also charge passengers for checking in to their flight at the airport. While online check-in is free, checking in at the airport will cost you $58 with Ryanair. In addition, if passengers needed to cancel or change their flight, they are met with high cancellation fees that may be more than their flight ticket. On Ryanair, for example, passengers cannot cancel their flight and receive any money back, and changing their flight can range from $37-$101. Even changing your name on a ticket can cost passengers up to $170 24 hours after booking.

Most shockingly, LCCs don’t make money on the ticket price. If tickets were the only stream of revenue for Ryanair, they would have lost $1.5 billion in 2019 . Almost 30 percent of revenue comes from hidden fees or added costs, like baggage and in-flight food. Other airlines, like Wizzair, saw 45 percent of revenue coming from ancillary revenue.

Route Availability

The greatest disadvantage of LCCs is their region and route availability. Some LCCs only service popular areas. For example, Southwest Airlines offers dozens of routes throughout more populated areas, but they don’t stop in Northern states such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Maine. In some states, they only serve one city.

Since these carriers use some secondary airports to reduce fees, this could mean landing way further from your destination than intended. An example of this is Ryanair’s flight to Frankfurt , Germany, which lands travellers in Hahn, 75 miles away from their destination. You may also land in an entirely different country . If travelling to Copenhagen, Denmark, you may land in Malmö, Sweden, which is 25 miles away. LCCs save money this way, but it can create a big headache for travellers who are left to figure out how to reach their destination.

Are Budget Airlines Commercially Viable?

LCCs make travelling by air more cost-effective and efficient. Providing consumers with the option to ditch excessive ‘luxury’ services and allowing them to pay only for what they want makes it increasingly easier to travel. Though the sacrifice of comfort, effective customer service, and route availability may pose a disadvantage to its viability, consumers actively decide to spend less and receive less in terms of amenities. With the significant amount of market capture and revenue from LCCs, it’s clear that this business model can play a role in the larger airline industry.

Autonomy of Revenue

shaylene@bloomsocialco.net (Shaylene Flanagan) — Wed, 17 May 2023 15:12:38 GMT

The Pros and Cons of Merchandise-Funded Companies

Merchandise-funded companies frequently come in the form of social media influencers or YouTubers. While some with a large following gain brand deals or sponsors, many online creators have turned to merchandise to fund their projects.

There are generally two types of merch that influencers push – merch that is dedicated to their online channel or brand and merch that is independent of that brand. Examples of this are the channel Good Mythical Morning, which sells merch that is branded with the channel name and themes. On the other hand, PewDiePie has a merch brand that is independent of the channel name and has relatively no connection.

This article will explore the advantages and disadvantages of selling merchandise to generate revenue for online projects.

Advantages of Selling Merchandise

Autonomy of Revenue

One of the greatest advantages of selling merch is that creators gain control over their revenue stream. Creators ultimately become their brands , which is why merch sales become crucial to supporting their business. An example of this is the YouTuber, PewDiePie, who has the largest following on YouTube at 111 million subscribers . He also maintains a successful merch line which earns him $6.83 million a year.

In comparison, PewDiePie generates more than $3 million in revenue per year from his YouTube channel, with around $20,000 in revenue per video . With around 150 videos per year, generating income from YouTube is a tremendous amount of work compared to merch development.

Though creating content on YouTube can be profitable, the YouTube Partner Program has significant amounts of red tape that makes it difficult and frustrating to generate a steady stream of revenue. On top of the many admission requirements, YouTube has all the power – meaning they can suspend ad revenue or even suspend your channel if they decide you’ve broken a rule. Likewise, the popularity of videos, which can determine the success of the video and therefore the amount of revenue it generates, is usually determined by YouTubes algorithm , which changes regularly and has let many large creators down in the past.

YouTubers who have made names for themselves on the platform have learned how to protect their independence by relying on merch sales rather than YouTube revenue. By augmenting the traditional way to earn money on YouTube, creators have been able to take control of their brand, values, and ultimately revenue.

Greater Focus on Creating Content

As a creator, finding time to manage content creation while generating a steady revenue stream can be difficult. Depending on the channel type, videos can require anywhere from $1,000 to $20,000 per minute to produce . While some creators have dedicated sponsors or brand deals, others spend a large amount of time seeking out such deals to fund their projects – which ultimately takes time away from creating content.

Selling merch gives the creator a steady stream of revenue which provides them with a better work/life balance and allows them to concentrate on their content. At some point, for creators like PewDiePie, the merch business becomes a form of passive income, where they only need to approve designs and sign papers. This leaves them with a significant amount of time to focus on producing high-quality, entertaining content.

Connecting With Viewers & Creating Community

Selling merch is a great way to create a strong connection between the creator and their most loyal and active subscribers. Introducing a way for the creator to collaborate with their audience fosters a greater sense of community and allows subscribers to embrace the channel's brand. Building a strong sense of community among fans ultimately builds the channel, allows the creator to have more meaningful relationships with subscribers and will eventually sell more merch. Not to mention that those who buy merch are like walking billboards . Even after the purchase, the channel's brand, logo, or other distinctive imagery continues to be spread by those wearing the merch.

Take the Yes Theory channel , for example. They have been able to build a worldwide community centred around Seeking Discomfort. On top of merch , they’ve created many online chat forums, meet-ups around the world and ultimately a lifestyle of following your dreams and doing things that make you feel uncomfortable. By selling merch, the creator has provided a chance to connect with subscribers worldwide and has given fans a way to connect, which only strengthens the community.

Disadvantages of Selling Merchandise

Startup Costs & Associated Risks

The cost of starting a merch line is one of the greatest disadvantages as it requires a significant amount of capital upfront. Paying for things like product design and production, an e-commerce platform, marketing, product storage, and distribution are all factors to be considered when evaluating the feasibility of releasing merch.

Creators must be able to front a large amount for start-up costs with the understanding that it takes time to recover such costs and start turning a profit. This poses risk as it can be unclear how sales will perform, especially for smaller channels. According to Forbes , it can take anywhere from 18 to 24 months for a new business to start turning a profit – though this doesn’t factor into the already established brand identity. For larger, successful channels, recovering these costs wouldn’t take as long as a small channel that doesn’t have as many subscribers. Though potential highly profitable, selling merch is a huge financial risk that should be carefully considered before launching.

Planning & Time Requirements

Starting any kind of business comes with risks and difficulties, especially when maintaining another business. Running a YouTube channel is much different than a full-scale merch business as it requires a massive amount of planning and is extremely time-consuming. That’s why it’s essential to have a detailed business plan that includes a strategy for staffing, marketing, finances, sales, distribution, etc.

Creators should also consider their knowledge of running a business. Creators who’ve had success with their channel for several years may have a better understanding of running a business than those just starting out.

It also takes a tremendous amount of time to get started. From product design to distribution, it can take anywhere from 6 months to a year to get a business off the ground. Clothing lines require even more lead time, at a minimum of 12 months . Without a solid plan, vital activities may be overlooked which could result in major delays.

Large & Dedicated Audience Required

The sale of merchandise depends on the performance, identity, and familiarity of the creator. Normally, large followings are required to make any sum of money on YouTube, let alone from merch. If a YouTuber has 11,000 Subscribers and sells 6 pieces of merch every month then that creator would generate $70 per month . This equates to about 0.5% of subscribers' purchasing merch each month. That profit is low considering how much work goes into launching and maintaining a brand. Therefore, having an already established large following is crucial to successful merch sales.

Generally, the creator’s brand identity is vital to the success of merch sales – which requires content that is well-aligned with the merchandise. A channel that is dedicated to gaming, that is primarily watched by impressionable teenagers , is more likely to have success selling merch compared to a channel geared to teaching financial management. It must make sense based on the channel content whether this revenue stream is going to be viable.

Familiarity and repetition are also extremely important for selling the brand, and eventually the merch. Subscribers are unlikely to buy merch if they don’t frequently see creators posting videos or staying active on social media. Consistently coming up on viewers' feeds repeatedly drives home the brand identity , which eventually pushes the users onto the channel and potentially onto the merch site.

Is Merchandise a Viable Way to Generate Revenue?

This business model can be extremely rewarding to creators and provides them with consistent revenue, control of their brand, and more freedom to deliver quality content. Though having your own business creates autonomy, and a stronger community, the challenges are significant. Considering the time and costs required to start a business, the greatest difficulty to overcome is the audience requirements. Without an established brand identity, and with many dedicated supports, selling merch can be extremely difficult. However, if there’s careful consideration and a large enough fan base, this business model is extremely viable and has proven to give financial freedom to online creators.

Want to see more articles?

Self Driving Cars

Tue, 16 May 2023 16:29:52 GMT

The Future of Driving or a Distant Dream?

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Tourism and the Economy

Tue, 16 May 2023 16:23:42 GMT

The Impacts of Tourism on a Country’s Economy and Its Residents

Tourism, or travel for leisure purposes, has grown in popularity all around the world. People flock to areas that draw large numbers of visitors to take in their culture, history, and attractions. With rapidly changing global trends, tourism has become one of the largest industries in our society. While a tourism boom can be incredibly beneficial to the economies of local regions, it is not without its drawbacks. This article explores the impacts of tourism on local economies and the people who live in tourist destinations.

Examining Tourism

The tourism sector is difficult to define since, unlike other industries, there is no single product. Many industries are included, including accommodation, transportation, entertainment, tour operators, and more. Tourism is described in its broadest sense as when individuals travel and stay in areas other than their regular surroundings for less than one year for leisure, business, health, or other purposes.

As the tourism industry is so far-reaching, it can bring many economic benefits to countries. In 2020, the direct contribution of travel and tourism to global GDP was estimated to be over 4.7 trillion US dollars . The United States contributed the most with 1.1 trillion dollars . Tourism also provided 330 million jobs worldwide, which roughly equates to one in every ten jobs being in the tourism sector.

It is abundantly clear that tourism has enormous economic benefits for a country. It has direct and indirect effects on numerous businesses and is one of a country's most important sources of employment and foreign exchange profits.

The Dark Side of Tourism

While tourism brings innumerable benefits to countries, it is not without its challenges. Many popular tourist destinations across the world are dealing with the advent of overtourism, which happens when a destination receives an excessive number of visitors. While the number of tourists that constitutes “excessive” is subjective, the effects of overtourism are felt by local inhabitants, hosts, and business owners. Some effects of overtourism include increased rental costs that drive out locals to make space for vacation rentals, small highways getting clogged with tourist cars, and vulnerable environments becoming destroyed due to strained resources, for example.

Mallorca, the largest of Spain's Balearic Islands, has struggled with the effects of overtourism for the past couple of decades. In 2019, 11.8 million tourists visited Mallorca , dwarfing the island's population of under a million. The rising expense of living has been exacerbated by the conversion of family houses into vacation rentals, and the environmental consequences of overtourism in Mallorca have been severe. Tourism has pushed water consumption to the limit, and air pollution from airlines and massive fleets of rental cars forced some residents to wear masks even before the coronavirus pandemic began. Pre-pandemic, planes flew through Mallorca's Son Sant Joan airport at a record-breaking rate of one every 90 seconds in July 2017 .

To help curb the negative impacts of mass tourism, officials in Mallorca announced a doubling of the tourist tax to €4 ($4.64) per person per day, which visitors are required to pay when checking out of hotels. These funds are intended to support a sustainable model so that tourism to the islands benefits local communities.

The Impact of the Coronavirus on Tourism

The coronavirus pandemic had a significant impact on the tourism industry across the world. National and international tourism came to a halt as countries adopted strict travel restrictions to combat the spread of the virus. The tourism industry's global revenue dropped by an estimated 42 percent in 2020. When looking at tourism revenue by country, the United States saw the largest decline in revenue, while the Asia Pacific area saw the biggest drop in international visitor arrivals. However, there have been pockets of activity, and as the pandemic fades, opportunities for businesses in the tourism industry are emerging.

As the world starts to open back up and more people resume national and international travel, it is important to understand the pros and cons of tourism in local economies.

The Benefits of Tourism for Local Economies

Creates Jobs

The tourism industry's most significant contribution to any country or region is the immediate generation of new jobs. Tourism creates numerous jobs in a wide variety of industries. These jobs are not limited to the tourism industry; they can also be found in peripheral industries such as agriculture, communications, health, and the educational sector, for example. Many travelers visit other countries to learn about the culture, traditions, and cuisine of the hosting country. Therefore, local eateries, shopping malls, and retailers benefit greatly. To illustrate, tourism has a significant impact on the population of Melbourne, Australia. It has a population of roughly 4 million people, and the tourism industry employs around 22,000 of them.

Improved Infrastructure

Tourism-dependent governments invest much in their country's infrastructure. They want more tourists to visit their country, which necessitates the provision of safe and advanced facilities. As a result, new roads and highways are built, parks are created, public places are upgraded, and new airports are built - all of which benefit local communities. Furthermore, residents benefit from increased opportunities for economic and educational advancement.

Brings In Foreign Exchange

When tourists visit a country, they invest much-needed foreign currency, bolstering the financial reserves of the host country. A well-developed tourism industry can generate large annual foreign exchange earnings. Aside from that, the tourism industry aids in the promotion of direct foreign investment in local tourist destinations, which benefits local economies even more. According to CEIC data, Germany's tourist sector earned $41 million in foreign exchange in 2019.

The Drawbacks of Tourism for Local Economies

Rising Cost of Living

Mass tourism has the negative impact of significantly increasing the cost of living for locals in popular tourist destinations. Take Barcelona for example. Approximately 30 million people visit Barcelona annually , which has created serious challenges for residents, including a 50 percent rent increase over the past five years. A 24-year-old receiving the average wage currently pays 114 percent of their monthly paycheck in rent.

Barcelona has the largest density of tourist apartments in Europe, with 12 for every 1,000 people, compared to 10 in Rome and 7 in London. Tensions among the locals are high as residents are upset about rising housing costs and rental rates. Despite its best efforts, the city is unable to restrict the spread of Airbnb and related services which are central to the problem.

Environmental Damage

One of the most common concerns about overtourism is its environmental impact. Excess pollution, habitat degradation, and the extinction of rare flora and animals can all result from too many tourists and insufficient laws. Maya Bay, for example, the magnificent Thai hideaway made famous by the film "The Beach," starring Leonardo Di Caprio saw nearly 2.5 million tourists in 2018, with an average of about 4000 visitors per day. The crowds and boats devastated large sections of the coral reefs, resulting in the extinction of most of the area's unusual sea life. The Thai government blocked this beach for a few years and only reopened it in 2021 to allow the coral reefs to heal and prevent the bay from eroding.

Overloaded Infrastructure

Unregulated tourism has significant negative environmental consequences, including local natural resource depletion, pollution, and waste issues. Overconsumption of natural resources is also a common problem due to mass tourism, especially in places where resources are already scarce.

Mass tourism places a huge strain on local land use and has the potential to deplete the environmental resources that locals rely on. After years of uncontrolled tourism, Boracay Island in the Philippines has been closed to restore the ecosystem. The waste problem is also a major issue in Bali, which is attempting to address it with the Zero Waste Bali concept .

The Verdict

Tourism brings a host of benefits to countries, such as job creation, improved infrastructure, and increased revenue. However, it is important for countries that heavily rely on tourism to put measures in place to mitigate the negative impacts of tourism on their local communities. The drawbacks of tourism on local economies and residents include rising costs of living, environmental damage, and overloaded infrastructure. Governments need to implement measures to protect their countries from the drawbacks of tourism, and tourists must be respectful of the local environment and cultures which they are visiting.

Dairy vs Non-Dairy

Tue, 16 May 2023 16:19:07 GMT

The Pros and Cons of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives

Milk and milk products have long been an important dietary staple, especially in Europe, North America, and other Western countries. Typically sourced from cows, goats, buffalos, or ewes, among other animals, dairy milk provides critical vitamins and minerals and is used in products ranging from creams and cheeses to candies, salad dressings, and deli meats.

However, dairy’s dominance of the milk market may be starting to wane. As consumers look for more sustainable products, many are turning to plant-based alternatives to reduce or completely replace their consumption of dairy milk.

Made by grinding beans, nuts, or other plants such as almonds, soy, oats, cashews, and rice, plant-based milk alternatives offer consumers similar taste, texture, and nutritional value as dairy milk. While the end product varies depending on the plants and other ingredients used, the demand for plant-based milk is steadily growing.

This article will examine the pros and cons of these plant-based milk alternatives against traditional dairy milk while highlighting some of the differences between different types of milk and milk products.

The Global Market for Milk and Plant-Based Milk Alternatives

While the market for plant-based milk is growing rapidly, it still trails the massive market for traditional dairy milk. In 2020, the global dairy products market was valued at over $468 billion, with continued growth expected to increase the total to $642 billion by 2030.

Asia-Pacific, with its large population, growing middle class, and increasing levels of urbanization, leads the way as the world’s largest market for milk. In the US, on the other hand, demand for milk decreased before remaining fairly flat. The category fell 15 percent between 2012 and 2017 , before growing only 0.4 percent per year from 2017 to 2022 .

In comparison, the market for plant-based milk alternatives was valued at $13.2 billion in 2020, with the global market expected to grow to $55.4 billion by 2031. Once again, Asia-Pacific is leading the way, accounting for 45 percent of the global market. Specifically, China is among the most prominent markets for milk alternatives in the world.

Advantages of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives

Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Dairy Milk

According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization , the dairy industry’s carbon emissions made up 3.4 percent of the world’s total emissions. As we recently highlighted in an article comparing meat vs. meat alternatives , livestock, and especially cows, emit high levels of methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). This problem is made worse as forests and other valuable natural landscapes are cleared to make room for animal farming and grazing.

While the impact of each alternative depends on the ingredients used, across the board, plant-based milk alternatives lead to fewer GHG emissions than traditional dairy. For example, one report found that a 200 ml glass of dairy milk emits 0.63 kg of GHGs, compared to 0.2 kg for soy, 0.18 kg for oat, and only 0.14 kg for almond.

Per glass, cow’s milk releases more than three times as much GHG emissions than plant-based alternatives.

Reduced Land and Water Usage

GHGs are only one part of the environmental equation when it comes to comparing different types of milk. Land and water use, as well as the pollution caused by the release of excess nutrients into water supplies, must also be considered to gain a complete understanding of how they stack up.

Here, too, plant-based milks come out ahead of dairy. Easily the most significant advantage of non-dairy milks is that they require far less land to produce. For example, a single litre of dairy milk requires 8.95m ² of land, while oat, soy, and almond only require 0.76m ² , 0.66m ² , and 0.5m ² respectively.

Soybean crops are often associated with deforestation and land clearing, especially in places like Brazil. However, the vast majority of the world’s soy, more than 77 percent , goes toward animal feed, while only 2.1 percent is used in the production of soy milk.

When it comes to freshwater usage, plant-based milks still have an advantage. On average, non-dairy milk uses two to twenty times less fresh water than dairy milk. As we’ll show, water usage is one of the areas where the type of plant-based milk you choose makes a significant difference.

Suitable for People With Health and Dietary Restrictions

Many people choose non-dairy milk for reasons beyond the environmental impact. Health concerns are among the most common, as many people are unable to process the lactose present in dairy milk. It is estimated that 68 percent of the world’s population has some form of lactose malabsorption, which can lead to intolerance. While people from Northern Europe are more likely to be able to absorb and process lactose, many people from Africa and Asia can not.

Of course, some people are unable to consume plant-based milk, as soy, almond, and cashews are all common allergens.

Beyond health reasons, many people may not consume dairy or animal products based on ethical concerns about the well-being of animals, religious or cultural reasons, or other dietary restrictions.

Disadvantages of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives

Not All Alternatives Have Equal Environmental Impacts

As noted above, plant-based milks are better for the environment than dairy milks. However, which one is best depends on what is important to you, as each impact the environment differently depending on how they are produced.

The differences are most pronounced in terms of freshwater usage. A litre of cow’s milk requires an incredible 628.2 litres of fresh water to produce , taking into account water usage across the entire supply chain. Rice milk, by comparison, requires 269.8L, while the biggest savings come from oat and soy, which only need 48.2L and 27.8L respectively.

Among plant-based milks, almond milk requires the most water, with a litre of almond milk needing 371.5L to produce. With roughly 80 percent of the world’s almonds grown in California, a region prone to long droughts and currently experiencing shortages of fresh water, this is a significant concern.

Looking at other environmental indicators, oat milk requires more than twice as much land as rice milk, while rice milk releases more than four times as many nutrients into surrounding ecosystems. The excess release of nutrients is a damaging process known as eutrophication, which can destroy freshwater habitats and cause algal blooms that choke off other forms of life.

Nutritional Differences

Dairy milk is an excellent source of protein, calcium, vitamins, and minerals. Not only that, but it is also fairly energy-dense and is a widely available food source for most people. Plant-based alternatives, however, lack some of these nutritional benefits, especially certain nutrients like potassium, protein, and vitamin D.

Most plant-based alternatives are fortified to make up for these deficiencies, but they often don’t provide everything that milk does. For example, a glass of dairy milk contains 8g of protein. Almond milk contains only 2g, while rice and coconut milk contain 0g. Rice milk, on the other hand, contains a surprising 22g of carbs, compared to only 12g for dairy and 1g for almond.

In most cases, other sources of food more than makeup for these differences. However, people who rely heavily on milk for their dietary needs, such as those living in developing countries, may not be able to source enough vitamins and nutrients without dairy milk. Similarly, infants and toddlers may not get all the nutrition they need from plant-based milks.

Consumer Preference and Suitability to Other Products

So far, we’ve mostly compared dairy and plant-based milks. But milk is used across a wide range of products, and not all of these are equally suited to plant-based alternatives. Consumer preferences and taste will play a big part in whether plant-based alternatives can make a significant dent in the global dairy market.

In one 2018 survey by Cargill (a company with significant interests in dairy production), 55 percent of participants said taste was their top priority when buying dairy products. When looking at specific products, non-dairy cheese still lags behind other products when it comes to consumer preferences. One survey found that nearly three in four consumers always opt for the dairy version of cheese, compared to 68 percent who choose the dairy version of butter and 66 percent who prefer dairy ice cream.

Age is also an important factor when comparing consumer preferences. The same survey found that 80 percent of adults over the age of 55 consume dairy products multiple times per week, compared to just 67 percent of those aged 18-34.

The Future of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives

While still small compared to the global dairy market, plant-based milk alternatives are growing in popularity, availability, and market share. Continuous innovation is resulting in new products, improved quality and taste, and a wide range of choices for customers looking to reduce or replace their dairy intake.

With significant environmental advantages, plant-based milk alternatives are an attractive choice for those looking to reduce their environmental impact or who have health or dietary restrictions that prevent them from consuming dairy.

Though the advantages vary depending on the ingredients and there are some differences in nutrition, taste, and consumer preferences, it is likely that plant-based milk alternatives will continue to fill an important part of the global milk market for years to come.

Hyperloop Transportation

Fri, 12 May 2023 17:16:47 GMT

The Future of Transportation or a Pipe Dream?

The idea of hyperloop transportation has grown in popularity in recent years. Elon Musk, inventor and Founder of SpaceX, Tesla and PayPal has even gone so far as to tout them as " the fifth mode of transportation " after roadways, railways, airways, and waterways. While there are lots of people who support the development of hyperloop and see it as the future of transportation, there are just as many critics out there who believe the hyperloop concept is nothing more than a pipe dream that will never happen. If you are planning on investing your time or money in this idea, then you will have to decide for yourself whether it has the potential to become reality, of if it’s just an illusion.

What Is Hyperloop and How Does It Work?

Hyperloop is a concept for a ground transportation system that would travel faster than a commercial airliner at a fraction of the price . It was first conceived by Elon Musk in 2012, and while it is still a concept under development, it has the potential to change the future of travel if successful. Hyperloop is a near-vacuum tube that uses electromagnetic propulsion and levitation to move pods at speeds of up to 760 mph . The concept goes back at least as far as the 18th century, when inventor George Medhurst successfully built a railway station in London that operated using pneumatics , a technology that uses compressed air to move objects, similar to how hyperloop functions.

This idea of using compressed air to advance transportation regained popularity in 2013 when Elon Musk released the “ Alpha Paper ”. This white paper laid out his vision for a high-speed transportation system that would eliminate the two factors that slow down existing travel methods: air resistance and friction. In the document, Musk explained hyperloop would work using transportation pods that would be supported by a soft air cushion within a tube and driven forward using magnetic induction and electromagnetic pulses. This would overcome the problems of air resistance and friction that have plagued traditional transportation methods, creating a more efficient mode of travel. He claimed it could cut the 380-mile trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles to a mere thirty-five minutes . If successful, this would mean hyperloop travel would occur at speeds reaching 670 mph, which is 15 percent faster than current commercial air travel.

Since the release of the whitepaper, many companies have sprung into action in the race to bring hyperloop to life. Musk’s patent-free release of the concept has produced a competitive fever to create this new mode of transportation. The speed of invention has quickened as numerous players work on hyperloop development, with the front-runners being Virgin Hyperloop One, Musk’s own The Boring Company, and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies. In 2020, Virgin Hyperloop One completed its first test of human travel in hyperloop pods, which was completed successfully. However, Virgin One has recently scrapped its plans for passenger travel to focus solely on cargo transportation, attributing the change in strategy to global supply-chain issues and challenges arising from the COVID 19 pandemic .

How Are Hyperloops Developing Globally?

According to Yahoo Finance, the global hyperloop technology market is expected to be the fastest-growing transportation segment, estimated at US $1.9 billion in 2021. It is expected to grow to US $9.0 billion by 2026, and will likely see new players starting to enter the space as technologies develop.

Currently, hyperloop is largely being developed and tested in the U.S., although many other countries are also developing their own hyperloop projects. KPMG has predicted that India is likely to pioneer hyperloop technology, as they have been working on projects to connect their sprawling cities of Mumbai and Pune through hyperloop – a 100-mile trip that can take upwards of four hours to complete by road. Virgin Hyperloop One had been spearheading this project until their recent shift towards freight, which leaves questions around the projects’ future.

India, however, is not the only country hoping to be the first to use hyperloop technology. Hyperloops are being planned to connect Dubai with Abu Dhabi and Mexico City with Guadalajara.

The Future of Travel

If successful, hyperloop technology has the potential to change the face of travel. As a potential mode of transportation, hyperloop is attractive due to its speed and its emphasis on solar power for energy consumption. However, some experts have expressed reservations regarding hyperloop's engineering challenges. The withdrawal of Virgin One from the development of passenger travel has further raised concerns about the feasibility of hyperloop travel as this pivot resulted in the company laying off more than 100 staff members . One of the biggest speed bumps hyperloop faces is the elaborate nature of the tube system, which is estimated to cost millions of dollars.

With all these opposing views on hyperloop, let’s weigh the pros and cons so you can decide for yourself what the future of travel has in store.

The Benefits of Hyperloop

Fastest Mode of Transportation

Given the reduction of friction and air resistance that is inherent in the design of hyperloop, this form of travel should be able to reach unprecedented speeds. Theoretically, hyperloop could reach maximum speeds of up to 760 mph, revolutionizing the world of transport. Passengers and cargo would be able to travel from point A to B in significantly shorter periods than was ever possible with positive changes for society. For example, rapid transportation could help to ease the housing crisis faced by many major cities as more people would be willing and able to live in the outskirts, in addition to saving commuters hours of travel time.

Lower Carbon Emissions

Hyperloop is designed to run on electricity and solar energy, making it a low-emission long-distance mode of transport. Solar panels on the rooftops of above-ground hyperloops have been proposed as a source of energy, as well as battery-powered hyperloops that store electricity in the tubes. Reduced friction means hyperloop requires only a minimal amount of electricity to reach high speeds, with the potential of being one of the most environmentally friendly methods of transportation alongside the electric automobile.

Its potential use case to transport freight could also help to minimize the significant carbon emissions created by trucks.

Safety in a Post-COVID World

Hyperloop has been designed to be a low-density, high-frequency transportation method. This allows for speed and safety while maintaining a high volume of travel. This is particularly important in a post-COVID world, where there is greater importance placed on the ability to maintain distance between people to reduce the spread of transmissible diseases such as the coronavirus. The first Hyperloop design carries around 30 to 40 passengers per pod, allowing it to potentially transport small groups of passengers at a high frequency due to its speed.

The Drawbacks of Hyperloop

High Cost To Develop

Hyperloop is still in its infancy, meaning there is a lot of research, development and testing that needs to occur to bring hyperloop to life. This makes the initial cost of creating hyperloop incredibly high. Musk's $6 billion price figure, according to financial and transportation experts, significantly understates the expense of designing, creating, constructing, and testing this new mode of transportation. According to leaked financial figures from 2016, Musk's Hyperloop might cost up to $13 billion, or $121 million per mile , making it difficult for many companies to enter the playing field to bring this vision to life.

Safety Concerns

Hyperloop, like any other mode of transportation, has a number of inherent safety hazards, and contingencies must be included in the system. As hyperloop is to operate at such high speeds, even the tiniest break in a vacuum tube would pose a major risk to passengers and crew. The companies behind hyperloop technology expect pods to leave every 30 seconds to two minutes . As a result, if an accident were to occur, the short distance between pod departures would increase the likelihood of a pile-up.

Limited Capacity

Capacity is another concern when it comes to the implementation of hyperloop. Even when operating at a higher frequency with fewer passengers, it is still unknown whether hyperloop will be able to transport the same volume of passengers that existing mass transit systems do . Critics argue that a significant number of pods will be necessary to achieve the same passenger numbers as traditional rail, which uses considerably larger carriages. There are also several engineering problems to overcome, such as making the tubes strong enough to resist the stresses of transporting the high-speed pods and figuring out energy- and cost-effective ways to keep them running at low pressure.

Is Hyperloop a Dream or Could It Become Reality?

That is the multibillion-dollar question that, as yet, remains unanswered. Hyperloop has the potential to be the fastest mode of transport available, with low carbon emissions and lower passenger density in a post-COVID world. However, hyperloop companies still need to raise a significant amount of money in funding, prove that the system can be constructed and operated safely and efficiently, and create plans to ensure that hyperloop can be an effective alternative to traditional modes of transit before this future technology can become a reality.

Travel Restrictions During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Fri, 12 May 2023 17:10:04 GMT

Were they effective?

Since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the world as we know it has changed drastically. The arrival of the COVID-19 virus brought the world to its knees and left global leaders scrambling to figure out how to stop it in its tracks. One of the solutions that many countries across the world have employed is the introduction of travel restrictions. Much debate has ensued surrounding the role of travel restrictions and their effectiveness in mitigating the spread of COVID-19. Countries around the world have different views of how to plan for and respond to disease outbreaks to stop their spread and, ultimately, save lives.

Examining the Coronavirus

Coronavirus, or COVID-19, is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. COVID-19 has varying effects on different people, and the majority of those infected experience mild to moderate symptoms and recover without the need for medical intervention. Others, however, become very ill and require hospitalization. Globally, COVID-19 has taken many lives, with a global death toll of at least 6,308,310 people as of May 2022. The actual number may be as high as 15 million, measuring for excess deaths, since it is difficult to effectively capture and report every death from every part of the world.

The Effect of COVID-19 on Travel

Few industries have been as hard-hit by the coronavirus pandemic as the travel and tourism industry. The tourism industry's global revenue dropped by an estimated 42 percent in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. This drop was largely due to the various travel restrictions countries across the world placed as a means to slow down the spread of the virus in their communities. According to research by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), 96 percent of all destinations worldwide implemented some sort of travel restriction in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While countries have taken varying measures to restrict travel since the onset of the pandemic, the UNWTO has grouped the existing kinds of travel restrictions into four categories :

Destination-specific restrictions, whereby passengers who have visited or transited in a country with confirmed cases within a specified amount of time will not be allowed to transit or enter their destination country.
Closing of borders, in which a destination country closes all its borders to visitors who may wish to enter. This affects land, sea, and air travel.
Suspension of international flights, where flights in and out of a destination country are suspended.
Other measures, such as mandatory quarantine for international arrivals, invalidating visitor visas upon arrival to a destination country, restrictions on regional travel within a country, and mandatory negative COVID-19 test results for entry.

Starting in March 2020, countries globally implemented variations of the four categories of travel restrictions with the goals of preventing and stopping the spread of COVID-19 within their borders, with varying levels of success. As of April 6, 2020 , 43 percent of all countries had partially or completely blocked their borders to visitors; 21 percent had implemented more targeted, destination-specific limitations, while 27 percent had halted some or all international flights. The remaining 9 percent were reliant on a variety of other restrictive measures, including visa limitations, in-country travel restrictions, and/or quarantines.

Lessons Learned

With the use of travel restrictions having been popularized across the globe by countries as a means to curb the reach of the coronavirus, we must ask ourselves, how effective is this tactic? Reports have shown that international travel restrictions are most successful during the early phases of a pandemic, before the disease spreads widely in the community, as they may aid in reducing the rate at which a disease spreads between regions. They are also particularly successful when a disease is localized regionally and easily detected, as Ebola was. Researchers have also found that these travel restrictions only help to prevent the spread of international cases when combined with physical distancing measures and other preventative directives, such as staying home when sick, wearing masks, washing hands, and giving handshake alternatives.

While we have seen some benefits to the implementation of travel restrictions, we cannot ignore the negative impacts that they have had. Prolonged travel restrictions have had a devastating effect on some local economies, especially those that are heavily reliant on travel. To understand the full impact of travel restrictions, let’s examine the pros and cons.

The Pros of Travel Restrictions

They Help Slow the Spread of COVID-19 in Areas Where It Is Not Yet Present

Travel restrictions have been proven in studies to have the capacity to halt the spread of a novel infectious disease in areas where it has not yet been transmitted. Australia implemented one of the world’s harshest travel restrictions in 2020, completely banning visitor entry for two years. According to a report by the Journal for Travel Medicine , Australia's travel restrictions against China were extremely effective, reducing incidents by 86 percent. However, the findings date from a time when the virus was mostly found in China and hence easier to isolate.

Reduction in Carbon Emissions

Travel accounts for 23 percent of worldwide carbon emissions , making it an important contributor to climate change. At the onset of the pandemic, non-essential travel was banned in several countries globally. Many airlines around the world canceled flights as a result, helping to limit the virus's spread. This significantly impacted the number of flights that took place. To illustrate, over 730,000 flights completed trips globally in the first full week of April 2019, compared to under 290,000 in 2020.

This significant drop in air traffic resulted in a temporary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

According to Carbon Brief research, carbon dioxide emissions in New York reduced by 5-10 percent, whereas emissions in China decreased by 25 percent since the beginning of 2020. However, this is only a temporary benefit of travel restrictions. Since the lockdown was loosened, air pollution in China has already increased to former levels. As a result, travel restrictions will only provide long-term advantages if a reduction in travel persists into the future to keep carbon dioxide emissions low.

Positive environmental impact

Travel restrictions have resulted in a significant drop in tourist numbers, which has had positive effects on the environment, especially in tourist hot spots. This is obvious in Thailand, where a drop in tourist numbers has increased the population of endangered leatherback sea turtles. Leatherback turtles are the world's largest turtles but are critically endangered in Thailand. Turtles have a hard time finding quiet, dark spots to lay their eggs when the beaches are crowded with tourists, which has caused their population to dwindle. Additionally, tourists frequently leave plastic behind, which can entangle turtles or cause them to choke on the waste. However, since the coronavirus pandemic, 11 turtle nests have been discovered since November of last year, the most in two decades.

The Cons of Travel Restrictions

Damages Economies

Inefficient and prolonged travel restrictions have created a substantial loss of tourist income, ultimately damaging the global economy. It is the third-largest export category, and in 2019 accounted for 7 percent of global trade . For some countries, it can represent over 20 percent of their GDP, with jobs in the tourism industry representing one out of every ten jobs and providing a living for many millions across the world. COVID-19 and the travel restrictions that have ensued have brought the tourism industry in tourism-dependent countries like Barbados and Seychelles to a standstill. In July 2020, the authorities reopened their island countries to international tourists after successfully stopping the local spread of the virus. Nonetheless, arrivals in August 2020 were nearly 90 percent lower than in previous years, squeezing a crucial source of government revenue.

Can Be Discriminatory Against Certain Countries and Populations

In November 2021, South Africa and Botswana reported the discovery of a new coronavirus subtype in their country , later called Omicron. While the World Health Organization (WHO) commended South Africa and Botswana on adhering to international health laws and contacting WHO as soon as the omicron variation was discovered, many countries responded by enacting travel bans on arrivals from southern African countries - South Africa, Lesotho, Eswatini, Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe. Only two of the countries, South Africa and Botswana had confirmed cases at the time, and after a week, news surfaced that Europe had confirmed cases before South Africa had discovered the variation.

The eight southern African countries were stigmatized for exchanging information, and they paid a high economic and societal price for doing so. This event will almost certainly harm future behavior in other countries and disincentivize them from sharing information about future diseases of concern.

Short Term Solution When Implemented in Silos

Travel restrictions are unlikely to be effective in preventing the spread of coronaviruses unless countries can entirely close their borders to all travelers. More than 63 percent of travel restrictions were found to be ineffective in a recent global study published in the journal of Communications Physics, partly because they were uncoordinated, created out of self-interest, or applied at the wrong time in the wrong places. To ensure the effectiveness of travel restrictions, countries need to work together in creating policies to restrict travel. Operating in silos makes the travel restrictions less effective as there is no common approach to curbing the spread of the coronavirus.

The Verdict

Travel restrictions have had many benefits in the fight against COVID-19 including helping slow the spread of COVID-19 in areas where it is not yet present, reducing carbon emissions from travel, as well as creating a positive environmental impact through decreased travel. However, it has had negative effects such as damaging economies by stalling the travel industry and discriminating against certain populations. Ultimately, while they have had some impact on curbing the spread of the virus, travel restrictions are a short-term solution when implemented in silos or without any other protective measures.

All Sizzle, No Steak?

Fri, 12 May 2023 17:04:15 GMT

How Do Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Compare?

People have long been finding ways to reduce the amount of meat they consume. However, until recently, many of the plant-based meat alternatives available have struggled to gain popularity. Many lacked the taste, texture, look, and feel of traditional meat, and they were often left to vegetarians or vegans who avoided meat and animal products altogether.

That’s changed in the past decade as new plant-based meat alternatives have come to market. Today, nearly two-thirds of Americans have eaten a plant-based meat product in the past year , and 20 percent consume a plant-based meat product at least weekly. As the quality of these products improves, they are becoming more widely available, affordable, and socially acceptable to eat.

Despite this recent surge, traditional meat is still far more popular. In 2020, the global meat sector was valued at $838 billion. In comparison, the global meat substitutes market was valued at only $6.67 billion. This is expected to grow to $16.7 billion by 2026 – rapid growth, but still a drop in the bucket of the estimated $1.15 trillion meat market by 2025.

China, the U.S., and Brazil are the world’s largest meat producers with a combined total of more than 164 million tons produced each year. European countries such as Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands lead the way in terms of plant-based innovation , with European consumers generally more receptive to alternatives than Americans.

As more consumers turn to plant-based meats for at least a portion of their meals, how do these products compare to meat, and what are the advantages and disadvantages when it comes to health, environmental impact, and consumer preferences?

Advantages of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Far Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Meat

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports that meat and dairy products account for around 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A recent study in Nature also found that animal agriculture accounts for 57 percent of global food production emissions. Much of this is in the form of methane, which generates as much as 28 - 34 times more warming than an equivalent level of carbon dioxide (CO2). In the US, domestic animals, mostly cows, are among the largest emitters of methane, accounting for more than 27 percent of total methane emissions and placing second only to natural gas and petroleum production.

The plants that go into meat alternatives, mostly soy, peas, wheat gluten, mushrooms, or some other mix of these proteins, emit far fewer GHGs and have significantly less impact on their surrounding environment. As a result, plant-based meat emits between 30 and 90 percent less GHG than conventional meat.

Less Land, Water, and Resource Intensive

Animal production requires a massive amount of land, water, and resources. Today, around 50 percent of habitable land is used for agriculture. Within this 50 percent, animal agriculture requires around 77 percent of all agricultural land. This is despite the fact that only 17 percent of our total food supply is made up of meat.

Meat production not only requires land for the animals themselves, but it also requires large amounts of land dedicated to growing animal feed. While land is needed to grow crops and the plants that go into plant-based meats, 75 percent of the global soy crop is used to feed livestock. Allocating more of this to human consumption by reducing the amount of meat in our diets can reduce the amount of land needed for farming.

Likewise, animal agriculture is incredibly water-intensive , and this will have significant implications as weather patterns shift and water becomes more scarce due to a changing climate. Plant-based meat uses between 72 and 99 percent less water than traditional meat. One study found that the total water footprint, the amount of water used across the entire production process , of a 150 g soy burger is 158 liters, far lower than the 2350 liters needed for a 150 g beef burger.

Plant-Based Meat Can Be A Healthier Choice

Plant-based meat may lead to fewer health risks than traditional meat. For example, a 2020 study found that plant-based meat is richer in fiber and that consuming plant-based alternatives reduced cholesterol and saturated fats.

Products like the Impossible Whopper , the plant-based version of Burger King’s famous Whopper, have significantly fewer calories, fats, and cholesterol. Meat alternatives can also be grown without antibiotics .

The potential health benefits are among the top reasons consumers are switching from meat. In a recent survey, 39 percent of respondents ranked healthfulness in the top three reasons they ate plant-based products.

Disadvantages of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Consumer Tastes and Culture

Despite the recent improvement in plant-based alternatives and the continued innovation, many consumers still prefer the look, feel, and taste of meat and are hesitant to shift away from what they already know. One study compared responses to a blind taste test of 100 percent beef patties, a blended patty containing a mix of 70 percent beef and 30 percent plant protein, and a plant-based patty. Consumers consistently preferred the beef patty and were willing to pay more compared to the other choices.

Cultural differences will also play a role in consumers’ willingness to move away from meat. As mentioned, consumers in European countries are embracing meat alternatives faster than those in the US where eating meat is widely seen as part of the culture. One study found that consumers do not feel alternatives are appropriate for every meal , limiting their potential to be fully substituted in the near term.

High Salt Content of Processed Foods

While there are many health benefits associated with plant-based meat alternatives, there are a few drawbacks as well. One notable example is that, in order to improve the taste of the product and mimic the taste of meat, manufacturers tend to add high levels of salt to their products.

A recent study in the UK comparing more than 400 plant-based and meat products found that 75 percent of the plant-based products did not meet the government’s salt reduction targets. Only two of the plant-based items were considered low in salt, compared to 45 of the meat products. However, as some nutritionists point out, these differences are often mitigated when consumers add seasonings and other sauces to meat when cooking.

There are also some concerns that plant-based products are highly processed, reducing the nutritional value of the soy or pea proteins that are used. As widespread consumption is a relatively new phenomenon, there is a lack of long-term studies analyzing the health implications of switching to these products.

Not All Meat is Equally Bad

Animal agriculture, as a whole, has a disproportionately negative environmental impact compared to plant-based agriculture. However, that doesn’t mean that all meat is equally bad, and as such, the environmental benefits of switching depend on the meat that is being substituted.

Beef production has by far the largest carbon, water, and land footprint of any meat or meat protein. Beef production emits nearly 60 kg of C02 equivalent per kg of beef, compared to around 8 kgC02eq/kg of pork or chicken. Cows take a long time to grow and reproduce, and the land required for beef production and animal feed is one of the leading causes of deforestation , furthering the impact on emissions.

Similarly, a single kg of beef requires 15415 liters of water, while a single kg of chicken requires 4325 liters. Amazingly, 98 percent of this water consumption is used to grow animal feed, not for the animals themselves. Vegetables, on the other hand, require 322 liters per kg.

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Will Continue to Substitute Traditional Meat

Plant-based meat is becoming more popular, and more consumers are substituting plant-based products as part of an overall effort to eat healthier and reduce their impact on the environment. Plant-based meat requires less land, water, and other resources, results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and has numerous health benefits.

That said, it’s probably too soon to write off meat completely. Many people still prefer the taste of meat, and a culture closely tied to meat consumption will take a long time to completely change. The global meat market will continue to grow as well, especially as a growing middle class in emerging economies such as China adds more meat to their diets.

The increased availability of plant-based meats gives consumers more choice when deciding what to eat, and occasionally substituting plant-based meat at some meals can have a significant impact without fully replacing meat.

Funding Pharmaceutical Research

Fri, 12 May 2023 16:56:49 GMT

The Roles of Private and Public Spending

The funding of pharmaceutical research often seems like a mysterious process. Obtaining information can be difficult, especially about private funding. Drug research money is spent by private companies, private foundations, and the federal government to create new drugs.

This article, the third in a series on the pharmaceutical industry, discusses how that funding is distributed, when it is spent, and how it impacts pharmaceutical research, before introducing some of the pros and cons of each approach.

What role do governments, industry, and private foundations play in funding pharmaceuticals?

The federal government, pharmaceutical industry, and private foundations all play a part in funding new pharmaceuticals. In fact, all pharmaceuticals on the market are created with a combination of both public and private funding. Because of this, it can be difficult to determine the role each specific entity has on the funding of pharmaceuticals, but there are some general tendencies of each funding source that can be compared and discussed.

What percentage of drugs have relied on public funding?

It is complicated to determine the percentage of drugs that have relied directly on public funding because all drugs receive public funding somewhere along the line of research and development. About nine percent of new drugs from 1990-2007 were patented by public institutions but then were licensed to private companies to continue their development. Another study showed that 48 percent of FDA-approved drugs from 1988-2007 were associated with a patent [link to article 2, patents] that was originally generated in the public sector, often with prior art (evidence that the drug was publicly known or publicly available). A further study found that National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding was either directly or indirectly involved with every drug that was approved by the FDA in 2010-2016.

How is funding distributed?

The majority of the funding for new pharmaceuticals is based in the private sector. Funding pharmaceuticals is a pricey endeavor and the number of new drugs entering the market has been increasing annually for the past decade. Private investment in the research and development of new pharmaceuticals in the U.S. was up to $83 billion in 2019 . For reference, they spent $38 billion in 2000 and $5 billion in 1980. On average, pharmaceutical companies pay about a quarter of their revenues on research and development.

In 2007, U.S.-based foundations invested about $75 million in biopharmaceutical companies. Funding hasn’t increased much at the government level since 2003, when it raised its allocation for the NIH to $26 billion. Comparatively, the largest philanthropic funder of pharmaceutical research and development is the Wellcome Trust at $909.1 million a year.

Only about twelve percent of the drugs that enter clinical trials are ultimately approved for distribution by the FDA. Every new drug that comes out can cost anywhere from under $1 billion in research and development to over $2 billion, though there are also sources that state that the cost is significantly less, at around $100 million.

Does the distribution of funding impact the types of drugs researched?

Private funding generally looks at three factors when deciding whether to fund a new drug – the potential revenue over the lifetime of the new pharmaceutical, the costs to develop a new medication, and the procedures and policies that may influence the supply and demand for prescription drugs.

In general, there is a trend in drugs recently approved by the FDA to be specialty drugs that treat chronic, complex, or rare diseases, regardless of funding type. They tend to be biologics, which are usually expensive to develop, difficult to replicate, and often have high prices. Biologics are large molecule drugs that are based on living cell lines. This is partially a response to the profit-driven goals of the business and partially because the majority of drugs developed 30 years ago were for more widespread diseases and ailments.

One report found that pharmaceuticals associated with the treatment of infectious diseases were overfunded in the U.S. while treating lifestyle or environmental ailments was significantly underfunded. It was also found that government funding played more of a part in innovative and new drugs rather than “standard review” drugs.

Because pharmaceutical companies front so much of the money for research and development of these drugs, it can be concluded that they will choose to research the drugs that will make them money and prioritize them over the medications that may be better for the public good.

Funding varies depending on the priorities of the public or philanthropic source. For example, the NIH spent more on cancer research than all other types of research combined. However, the Wellcome Trust tends to spend around 14 times the amount on infectious diseases than it does on cancer research.

What does the funding pay for?

There are several activities in the research and development of pharmaceuticals that require funding. First is invention, which is the research and discovery of new drugs. Next is development. Development encapsulates everything from clinical trials and application for FDA approval to the design of production processes for new drugs. There is also incremental innovation, when different dosages and delivery mechanisms for existing medications are determined, plus testing for new indications.

Product differentiation requires funding as well to test the new drug against any existing rival drug to ensure that the new drug is superior. Finally, there are additional clinical trials done after the product has reached the market for safety monitoring. These may be required by the FDA to detect side effects that may have not been observed in the shorter clinical trials required for the development of the drug.

At which stages are certain types of funding most important?

Basic discovery research is usually funded by either government or philanthropic organizations. Later stages of development including clinical trials are often privately funded. There is occasional collaborative support from government entities at this phase. In fact, $3.77 billion from private pharmaceutical companies is spent on grants for clinical trials each year. This is compared to the $750 million spent by the federal government through NIH funding. Needless to say, that while there is some funding for clinical trials through the government, the bulk of the money spent is through the private sector.

What are the pros and cons of public vs private funding of research?

Because there is usually a mixture of both public and private funding in the research and development of all new drugs, this question really is difficult to answer. The pharmaceutical industry is becoming increasingly involved at the basic research end of it, so much so that medical journals have requested that individuals not submit pharmaceutical research unless they are solely responsible for the work and had sole access to the data.Many academic institutions are now permitting pharmaceutical companies to attach strings to their research. Such strings might allow the companies to design the trials, write the papers, review the papers before publication, and even retain and analyze the data.

In the end, the different types of funding for pharmaceutical research are so tied together between public and private entities that it is difficult to determine which one is better or worse. Of course, pharmaceutical companies have different priorities than government and philanthropic funding, but since all of the drugs that become FDA-approved and enter the market have both private and public funding involved in their creation, there’s no real way to state which is better and which is worse. Both of them are involved and that’s just how things are done with regards to funding pharmaceutical research in the United States.

Buses, Subways, and Public Transit

Fri, 12 May 2023 16:54:38 GMT

What Role do Buses and Subways Play in Public Transit?

The Advantages and Limitations of Buses and Subways

Public transportation is essential for connecting people to essential services, bringing them to work, and enabling social gatherings. Whether it’s buses or subways, public transit enhances the quality of life for community members. They’re also t he best way to reduce transportation-related emissions by decreasing the number of cars on the road.

Buses and subways connect cities; however, they have many advantages with a few limitations. Some cities have high enough population density to warrant a subway system, whereas in rural areas it’s not possible. This article will evaluate what situations best suit the use of buses, subways, or even both.

Ridership Costs

The cost of transportation to riders should be considered as areas that are densely populated, like New York City or Tokyo, typically have lower costs. However, in some countries, governments do not subsidize the cost of building such infrastructure. For example, a large majority of people in London don’t use public transit due to the high cost of a ticket, currently around $4.00 , making driving a more attractive option. This not only continues to keep costs high due to depressed demand, but it also mitigates the effects of reduced emissions as more people choose personal vehicles.

The actual cost (or revenue for the agency) for riders is a factor to consider when weighing transportation options. Cities like Tokyo, which has a high cost of living, have fairly low transit costs at $1.50 . On the other, a ticket will cost around $4.60 in Copenhagen , $2.80 in NYC, and $2.40 in Toronto. The city with the lowest price for public transit is Cairo at just $0.20 . This cost is analyzed together as cities that have both transit options, have one fee.

Advantages of Buses

Lower Operational Costs

The most common type of bus in the USA is fueled by diesel. These busses have an initial cost of around $550,000 . Some cities have implemented hybrid buses, which cost on average $714,000. While the initial cost is relatively the same around the country, the operating costs vary. For example, in New York City, hourly operating costs are $215, whereas in San Diego it’s only $90/hour. The overall lifetime cost of a diesel bus is estimated at $1.25 million , which includes maintenance, gas, and other expenses.

On a per passenger basis, the cost of running a bus is extremely variable as it depends on how many people are on board. When a bus has 6 passengers, it costs the agency $20 per passenger , whereas if the bus is full, it only costs around $2 per passenger.

Positive Environmental Impact

Taking any form of mass transportation is a very effective way for people to reduce their emissions. A typical diesel bus emits 229,167 pounds of CO2 emissions annually, whereas a single gas car, carrying far few people, emits 10,141 pounds annually . If one person ditches their car for public transit, they can reduce their total emissions by around 30 percent. When considering that a bus transports thousands of people per day, the annual savings in emissions is 37 million metric tons of CO2 .

The dependency on fuel and decreased congestion would also cause a positive impact on the environment. Buses save 4.2 billion gallons of gas annually , which saves around 300,000 car fill-ups. They also save 865 million hours in travel time for commuters.

Availability and Flexibility

For a busy city like New York, the annual ridership in 2019 was 557 million . With over 300 routes in the city , it is extremely efficient to get around. In other cities, such as Chicago, their bus system has 129 routes and has an annual ridership of 130 million . For smaller cities, like Green Bay, Wisconsin, there are far fewer routes, and, in turn, fewer rides – 14 bus routes with an annual ridership of 1.165 million . Buses are usually able to move 2,000 riders per hour when mixed in with traffic, and up to 8,000 in bus lanes.

Depending on the area and population, the availability and flexibility of routes vary. The biggest issue with buses is the wait times, especially in less-popular routes/stops. Even in a big city like Houston, Texas, wait times have been observed to be as high as 60 minutes at certain stops. For popular routes, buses may come every 5-10 minutes.

That said, buses are notoriously unreliable, either being too early, too late, or not showing up at all. There also isn’t a lot of flexibility with routes as they are set and cannot change based on rider needs. This means that riders may need to walk long distances to get to a stop or arrive at their destination. Buses are also not available at all hours of the day. Service will usually end around midnight to 1:00 AM before resuming service around 4:30-5:00 AM.

Advantages of Subways

Increased Availability and Ridership

The New York City Subway is one of the biggest in the world, with an average ridership of 5.7 million weekly , and 1.75 billion annually in 2016. With speeds varying from 15 mph to 30 mph and 472 stations, it is a very effective subway system. Comparatively, the Toronto Subway system, with 75 stations , moved 88 million passengers in 2019 . Though Toronto is the biggest city in Canada, ridership doesn’t come close to that of NYC. Typically, subways can move 15,000 to 36,000 people per hour per route , but this is highly dependent on the number of cars and routes.

The flexibility of subways is a huge weakness as they run on the same tracks every day and cannot be altered. This means that riders could still have a long commute after taking the subway. Therefore, subways are implemented in large cities as they already have a network of bus routes that connect the subway stations to smaller neighbourhoods.

Unlike buses, the NYC subway is available 24 hours a day, which makes it extremely available for riders. After hours, between 12 am-5 am, the subway slows down which results in less frequent trains. For this system, you can expect wait times of 2.5 minutes between trains during rush hour, and about 5 minutes during off-peak times, a major advantage over busses.

Low Operating Cost – High Initial Cost

The initial cost of implementing a subway is pricey. The cost of the Los Angeles Green Line, for example, was $712.3 million . To add lines to Toronto’s subway would cost $200-$400 million per kilometre . The hourly cost of operating the LA Metro is around $395 , whereas the hourly operating cost for a much smaller Metro in Chicago is $145/hour.

Though the initial cost of a subway system may seem high, the cost to build an additional lane on any major road is about $772,000 . Similarly, the annual maintenance of roads is another expense. Metro Vancouver, for example, spends $235.31 million on road maintenance . To put it into perspective, building a subway system is not any more expensive than servicing Vancouver roads for a few years.

Decreased Emissions Over Time

Like buses, subways can lower emissions due to the number of people they transport. The San Francisco subway only produces 125 grams of CO2 per passenger per mile (ppm). Compared to a standard vehicle, which emits 375 grams ppm, and buses, which emit 665 grams ppm when almost empty, or 85 ppm when full, subways are very carbon-efficient.

However, the construction of subways also results in emissions, and it can take decades to offset them with the savings over passenger vehicles. The University of Toronto has found that emissions from the construction of the newest subway line in Toronto, completed in 2002, weren’t offset until 2020 – a full 18 years later . The total emissions created during construction amounted to 168,000 metric tons over 8 years. Line 4 is also a very small system, with a total track length of only 5.5 km, so you can only imagine how pollution-intensive building an entire system must be.

How Cities Choose the Right Approach

When cities are considering installing a public transit, factors such as area, population, and population density must be considered. Typically, cities with a higher density around the core would consider installing a subway system, whereas a city with a large area and lower population may not see a great enough return.

With the proper infrastructure, like bus routes and hubs, a city with a more spread-out area would reap the benefits of a great bussing system. Like the rapid buses in LA, with the proper infrastructure , people agree that it is better than the subway system. With a low population density, there are often fewer benefits to a subway system. Installing a bussing system is also generally more cost and time effective than a subway.

Installing a subway system is extremely expensive and takes several years. It is a huge investment for cities, and most require federal funding. If large cities find that their bus routes aren’t providing fast, efficient, and affordable transportation, then a subway could be the answer.

Both forms of public transit are great at lowering transportation-related emissions and connecting cities. However, they are large investments and should be carefully considered before any construction begins.

Banks vs Credit Unions

Fri, 12 May 2023 16:36:17 GMT

How do They Compare?

If you are reading this blog, chances are you are looking to keep more of your hard-earned money. Today there are more choices for financial products available to consumers than there have ever been. Credit unions and banks now offer increasingly similar financial products, and whether you are looking to open a new chequing account, savings account, or line of credit, it can be difficult to determine which institution provides the best option for your needs.

Examining Credit Unions

At first glance, credit unions appear to be very similar to banks in that they offer many of the same products that banks do, such as chequing and savings accounts, credit cards, and loans. However, when we stop to take a closer look, we start to see some key differences that result in different outcomes for consumers.

A credit union can be defined as “A type of financial cooperative that provides traditional banking services.” Unlike banks, credit unions are non-profit entities that are controlled and owned by their “members” , or customers, who use their services. Credit unions are operated by members who are elected to be a part of the Board of Directors and are tasked with managing the credit union on a volunteer basis.

To join a credit union, an individual must meet the criteria to be a part of a credit union’s field of membership. This means they need to meet certain requirements to be eligible . This could meaning living in a certain area, working for an employer with an established relationship with a credit union, belonging to certain organizations, or having a family member who is part of a credit union.

What Is the Goal of a Credit Union?

The main objective of a credit union is to promote the best interests of its members. As a non-profit organization, they are exempt from paying taxes at the rate that banks and other for-profit organizations pay. This means they don’t have to pay corporate income tax on profits and just need to make enough money to meet day-to-day expenses.

In 2019, the U.S. had the highest number of credit unions by far, with 1,584,742 credit unions available nationwide and assets reaching approximately 1.58 trillion U.S. dollars. Canada came in second with 340,693 credit unions nationwide and about 340.7 billion U.S. dollars in assets.

While the lower interest and loan rates may make credit unions an appealing choice, there are several reasons to consider banks as well.

Examining Banks

A bank is a financial institution that has a license to hold and lend money to both individuals and organizations. Like credit unions, they offer various financial products to their customers, like everyday chequing accounts, savings accounts, and lines of credit. However, unlike credit unions that only serve their members, banks are open to anyone who is interested in their products and services, provided they don’t have a poor banking history.

Banks also have significantly more branches and ATMs available to service customers than credit unions do. According to a 2016 study by the Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research , there were 2,906 credit union branches across Canada, while banks had 5,388 branches nationwide. However, the study also showed that banks had a larger proportion of branches in urban areas, while credit unions had a larger representation in rural areas, with almost one-third of credit union branches present in rural areas.

What Is the Goal of a Bank?

As banks are owned by investors, their primary goal is to make profits for their shareholders. While banks work to meet the needs of their customers, there is a greater focus on earning a profit. They are also subject to corporate income taxes due to their for-profit status, and it is common for banks to frequently charge greater fees than credit unions. Circumstances differ from bank to bank, but generally, banks' lending interest rates are higher than those offered by credit unions. In 2020, credit unions in the U.S. offered a 15-year fixed-rate mortgage at a rate of 2.79 percent on average, while banks offered an average rate of 2.92 percent .

Comparing Banks and Credit Unions

When it comes to security, credit unions and banks are generally comparable in Canada. Canadian deposits to both banks and credit unions are insured by the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC). The CDIC is an independent crown corporation formed by the federal government of Canada. It was established to protect bank deposits of up to $100,000 per insured category held in member Canadian institutions. Member institutions include federal credit unions, major national banks, Canadian branches of international banks, as well as non-traditional banks .

On the whole, banks are larger than credit unions in terms of market size. According to a report by IBIS World, the market size (measured by revenue) of the Commercial Banking industry in Canada, is $230.3bn , compared to the market size for credit unions at $20.1bn in 2022.

Banks and credit unions clearly differ in significant ways. But what are the benefits of working with each institution? Let’s take a look.

The Case for Credit Unions

Lower Lending Interest Rates & Higher Savings Rates

Credit unions operate to promote the financial well-being of their members. As a result, they can offer their members better interest rates on deposits than banks, which allows members to make more from their savings.

According to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the national average rate for five-year certificates of deposit (CDs) from credit unions in the U.S. was 0.94%, compared to an average rate of 0.78% at banks in 2020 . Similarly, most offer some of the lowest rates on credit cards and other lines of credit on average.

Despite this, it is always important to shop around to find the best financial products for your situation.

Stronger Customer Service

As credit unions are member-owned and managed, their priority is to put their members first. This allows them to offer more personalized service to each of their members and is why credit unions have a strong reputation for providing more personalized customer service. Members also have equal voting rights that allow them to influence votes on customer service concerns, something that is not possible with banks.

Community Involvement

As members of a credit union often have shared interests as a requirement to join, many appreciate the opportunity to participate in an institution designed to help other members. Credit unions frequently give back to the communities they serve since they tend to be locally oriented and are focused on their members. They may award scholarships or grants to college students , or they may participate in fundraising events. Some credit unions may also provide financial education and literacy training for their members as well.

The Case for Banks

Greater Accessibility

Unlike credit unions that only serve their members, banks serve the public. This makes banks more accessible for people who may not meet the eligibility criteria to join credit unions and can mean that banks are a more appealing option for consumers who do not have a personal connection to a community that is served by a credit union.

Increased Convenience

Banks generally have more branches and ATMs available nationwide than credit unions do. This makes it easier and more convenient for consumers to be able to access their money and conduct other services with banks. Bank ATMs and branches tend to be more concentrated in urban areas, while credit unions have a higher proportion of branches in rural areas, especially in Canada. It is important to note that while credit unions have fewer branches and ATMs on average, they frequently collaborate with other cooperatives to expand branch locations and provide increased access to fee-free ATMs.

Superior Technology

Banks usually have better financial technology than credit unions. As they tend to be larger organizations, banks have larger budgets than credit unions with which to invest in technology, such as mobile banking apps and improved website experiences. Customer experience can be a way to draw customers from other banks and retain existing clients who value the ability to conduct their banking across a range of platforms and devices.

While many credit unions have come a long way in improving their technological services through offerings such as mobile cheque deposits and mobile banking apps, they still lag behind the big banks in many cases, making them less attractive to some customers.

Which Option Is Better for You?

While banks and credit unions offer similar products and services, there are some key differences between the two financial institutions. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to choosing between the two, which is why it is important to evaluate the features that are most important to you and your situation.

For consumers who may not qualify to be a part of a credit union, need nationwide access and convenience, or value easy access to online and mobile banking technology, a bank may be the better bet. But for consumers who value lower interest rates, higher savings rates, personalized customer service, and a commitment to community involvement, then a credit union may be the right choice.

Want to see more article s?

Subscription Funded Companies

Fri, 12 May 2023 16:32:55 GMT

Are They a Viable Way to Do Business?

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

High Speed Rail

Fri, 12 May 2023 16:29:03 GMT

Is it the future of mass transportation?

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

The Responsibility of Reducing Plastic Waste

Thu, 11 May 2023 16:45:40 GMT

Should the responsibility fall on individuals or corporations?

Why So Much Plastic?

When one sees the images of heaps of plastics accumulating in landfills or on the surface of the ocean, one question that might immediately come to mind is “where did all these plastics come from?”.

Perhaps it was due to the excitement over the then newly discovered synthetic “miracle material”. For several years, the world was oblivious to the growing amount of plastic waste accumulating in the environment.

Plastics are indeed great. They are lightweight, water resistant, cheap, and easily processed into a wide variety of products in every industry. With such desirable properties, manufacturers found plastics irresistible and soon everything that could be made from plastics was, well, being made from plastics.

However, the best attributes from plastics also turn out to be the worst parts about them; plastics don’t go away. In fact, they can take hundreds to thousands of years to degrade . Considering that they have only been around for some decades, this indicates that every petroleum based plastic that has ever been synthesized, if it has not been incinerated or chemically recycled , is still out there somewhere.

The world went from just 2 million tonnes produced in 1950 to an annual average of 400 million tonnes of plastic in recent years. Plastic packaging, mostly single use plastics, account for 36 percent. The plastics from the textiles industry contribute about 14 percent - with many fast fashion products discarded every fashion season.

Added to these are consumer products and institutional products such as hospital supplies which make up 10 percent of global annual plastic production. These are things such as toys, utensils, and appliances that are eventually be discarded at the end of life.

Similarly, the electronics such as phones, refrigerators, alarm clocks, and others that get thrown out once they develop a fault or go out of trend make up 4 percent. Building and construction plastics make up a further 16 percent, while transportation makes up an additional 7 percent.

We can see that the products making up the largest proportion of plastic are those designed for shorter usage life. The most common plastics found littering the environment are water and beverage bottles, bottle caps, straw, stirrers, cigarette butts, food wraps, foam food packaging, and shopping bags.

This article, the third in a series examining plastic waste, discusses ways in which companies and individuals can reduce plastic waste.

The Companies Taking Responsibility for Reducing Plastic Waste

Providing Sustainable Options and Solutions for Customers

Often, companies create the demand for certain products through marketing. Customers are also inclined to use what is available or most accessible. It is therefore up to the companies to innovate and develop plastic-free options for customers. Unilever, for example, now offers refillable packaging . In selected trial locations, Unilever provides facilities for customers to bring in their packages for refilling at the stores. It started this in 2020 in Europe and in 2019 in Mexico for products like shampoo and laundry products. These trials are being run in the UK, Pakistan, Australia, and Mexico. Reports show that customers have responded well and embraced these options in the trial stores. An example of the impact of this is that 170 tonnes of plastic have been saved since the refill for the Cif Power and Shine spray bottles were introduced.

Recycled plastic and sustainable content

Where plastics are being recycled, they need to be used in products that are used at the same rate as the plastic waste is being generated to minimize the need to create more plastics or have an accumulation of waste plastics. The supply and demand for recycled plastics need to match up.

One way companies do this is to recycle the plastics back into the parent product. Recycled PET (rPET) is now increasing in popularity as companies are under pressure to increase recycled content in their products.

Coca Cola, for example has made the switch to produce all its bottled products from recycled plastics in Sweden, Norway, and Netherlands. The transition is estimated to reduce annual virgin plastic production in Norway and Netherlands by 140,000 tons . The company also recently introduced a new Sprite bottle with improved recyclability into some markets. The new bottle makes use of a clear PET bottle with an easy tear label. Clear bottles are easier to recycle than colored bottles since the coloring in the plastic products often acts as impurities and alter the properties, and this can be exacerbated when the product is recycled.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Companies can contribute towards making plastics more sustainable in various ways. These can be through funding start-ups with innovative sustainable products, providing recycling facilities, or funding research to advance plastic waste management technologies. For example, research into converting synthetic plastics into energy sources using sunlight can help move the world closer to the ideal of a truly circular plastic economy.

Tetra Pak, for example supports some recycling projects in partnership with companies such as Europlasts, Alag Karo, Palurec, OPI, Recon, Green Earth, and Bio Pappel , amongst others. Such support facilitates innovations and technical capacity that can accelerate advancement toward a more circular plastic economy. For example, the partnership with Bio Pappel is directed at building a carton recycling facility in Mexico, while the partnership with Green Earth is dedicated to building facilities for recycling single-use plastic composites into products such as furniture and roofing sheets.

Individuals Taking Responsibility for Reducing Plastic Waste

Responsible Consumption and Conscious Demand

Companies try to meet the demand and desire of consumers. It is therefore important that the consumers educate themselves on the impact of plastics on the environment and make more sustainable product choices. This can, in turn, drive the production of more sustainable products.

The government can also play a role in creating public awareness and shifting the mindset of consumers toward more sustainable choices. Consumers are already demanding better, and recent studies show an increasing trend towards more conscious consumption in recent years.

Some plastics designated as single-use plastics can be reused. Reusing a single-use plastic bag at least 50 times followed by recycling can make it a more eco-friendly option when compared to paper shopping bags which require more water and resources to produce. Likewise failing to reuse a reusable shopping bag and simply discarding it after one user has a worse environmental impact than just using a single-use plastic in the first place.

Consumers can also ease the collection and sorting process for recycling companies by cleaning and sorting their plastic waste.

When presented with a variety of options while in a supermarket aisles or shopping for products online, consumers can take care to consciously choose sustainable products that are plastic-free, recyclable, and/or reusable .

Public Pressure

Individuals can apply public pressure on companies to drive more sustainable plastic management through means such as joining pressure groups, signing petitions, donations to pressure groups, volunteering, and posting to social media.

Public pressure can be in the form of publishing research data and videos on plastic pollution which reveal the role of companies and the scale of plastic pollution. In 2019, the environmental group Break Free From Plastics named the beverage company Coca-Cola as the worst plastic polluting company . This was based on the data collected from plastic waste clean-ups in over 50 countries.

By 2020, Coca-Cola announced its decision to make the shift to using 100% recycled PET in 30 markets and make their beverage bottles more recyclable. While no evidence suggests a direct relationship between the Break Free From Plastic report and the new changes the company making towards reduced plastic waste, it is undeniable that public pressure can be a driving force in achieving a more circular plastic economy.

Active Engagement

Individuals can actively engage in tackling the plastic waste crisis. Activities that individuals can take part in include beach clean-ups, recycling runs, and collection of plastics from the waterways by boat or helicopter.

There are various organizations individuals can volunteer in. For example, for the past 30 years, Ocean Conservancy has collected over 136,000 tonnes of plastics from beaches across the world with the help of tens of thousands of volunteers. Individuals can also actively help track and generate data on plastic pollution using apps like the Debris Tracker App that was developed in partnership with the University of Georgia.

The app helps individuals to send in data on the location and quantity of plastic waste using images. Data from individuals across the world can be compiled and analyzed for the purpose of developing data-driven solutions to plastic pollution.

Some supermarkets, like Tesco in the UK, now offer consumers the option of returning specified plastic packaging and bags to be recycled. It is therefore up to the individuals to actively engage in such initiatives.

Reducing Plastic Waste – A Shared Responsibility

Both the companies and individuals have roles to play in reducing plastic waste. Individuals have the consumer power to demand that companies be more sustainable, while the companies have the power to fund and support innovative sustainable options.

Either way, reducing plastic waste must be a priority going forward to ensure that this incredible material can still be used sustainably and in an environmentally friendly way.

Cash or Card?

Thu, 11 May 2023 16:42:05 GMT

Which is a better way to pay?

“Cash or Card?” The age-old question that has stood between many buyers and their shiny new purchase. For a long time, cash and credit cards have been two of the most popular payment options available to consumers. However, with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and the global shift toward online shopping and digital payments, could cash payment be turning into a thing of the past?

Over the past few years, overall cash payments have been on the decline. In Canada, for example, the volume of cash exchanged between 2015 and 2020 decreased by 38 percent . Much of this volume was lost to card payments.

The coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated this trend, with factors such as lockdowns and curfews preventing access to brick-and-mortar stores. Increased concerns over the risk of virus transmission through the handling of notes and coins have also played a part in the move away from cash. As a result, many consumers have opted to do most of their purchasing online and through contactless channels, with 40 percent of Canadians stating they used their mobile wallets more often to pay for store purchases since the COVID-19 pandemic started .

Sweden’s Rapid Advance to a Cashless Society

These changes are not unique to Canada, as several other countries across the world have observed similar changes. Sweden, for example, is at the vanguard of cashless countries. In 2020, cash payments accounted for less than 1 percent of total transactions in Sweden , and it is expected that Sweden will become the world’s first cashless society by March 2023 .

There are a few reasons that Sweden has been able to take this stance. Firstly, Sweden has a well-developed internet infrastructure, with 94 percent of Swedish households having access to the internet in 2020 . Sweden also has a strong mobile network that has supported the widespread use of their mobile payment app, Swish , which links users’ phones to their bank accounts and facilitates payments and money transfers in real-time.

In 2020, 94 percent of Swedes stated they use Swish as a form of payment. Another reason for Sweden’s swift advance to a cashless world is the fact that the majority of its population owns a bank account. As of 2017, 99.74 percent of the Swedish population was banked , making access to credit cards and digital payment methods possible.

Where Cash Still Dominates

While countries like Sweden have embraced the move from cash to cards and digital payments, there are plenty of other countries where cash is still king. In 2020, a study by Merchant Machine showed that Romania is the most cash-reliant country in the world, with over 70 percent of payments having been made in cash . Egypt and Kazakhstan follow closely as the second and third most cash-reliant countries. Both have a high percentage of their population being unbanked and a comparatively low number of internet users.

However, bank account ownership and internet access aren’t the only factors responsible for the preference for cash in some countries across the world. Take Japan for example - it is one of the world’s most technologically savvy countries with 91.2 percent of the population having access to the internet in 2019 . Yet, cash is still king, with about 80 percent of transactions being paid in cash .

This is largely due to the fact that cash is a large part of Japanese culture and cash is often given as a gift at other celebrations, such as weddings, which has helped to ensure its longevity in Japanese culture.

While cash still dominates in Japan, the Japanese government is working on gradually moving toward a less cash-reliant world, with a goal to see 40 percent of transactions conducted through cards and digital payments by 2025, up from about 20 percent currently .

With the use of cash declining at different rates globally, it is important to examine the benefits of both cash and card payments as we move towards a more card-reliant world. But what are the benefits of each method of payment? Let’s take a look.

The Case for Cash

Cash is Accessible

Bank account ownership and widespread access to the internet are some of the most important requirements needed to support a cashless society. This fact has led to concerns about how accessible a cashless society truly is, especially to the most vulnerable in the population.

Those who are homeless, undocumented, or otherwise lack any other pre-requisites needed to open a bank account are extremely vulnerable in the face of a cashless society. There are also concerns for the elderly and ensuring that they can adopt new technologies in a cashless world so that they, too, are included in the new financial system. Cash allows those who have little or no access to digital money to be able to make payments and save money, which is critical for the inclusion of socially disadvantaged populations, such as the elderly and low-income groups.

Cash Is Less Susceptible to Technological Issues

Card and digital payment methods are heavily reliant on technology to function. IT failures, such as loss of electricity, internet outages, or system failures could leave consumers unable to pay and merchants unable to sell their products. Cash is a failsafe option to pay as it is not reliant on technological systems to be used.

There is also the risk of hacking and cybercrime when using cards or other digital payment methods. Because the digital transaction process involves several parties at various stages, such as merchants, payment gateways, and financial institutions, each point poses as a potential point of attack for malicious actors. On the other hand, cash transactions occur between the buyer and seller offline, protecting both parties from cyberattacks and hacking.

Cash Provides Anonymity

When it comes to privacy, cards and digital payment methods do not offer the same level of protection that cash does. For each transaction that is made electronically, a wealth of information about the consumer is shared - not just between the merchant and the bank - but also with the credit card companies that function as the middlemen.

The primary middlemen in most card transitions are Visa, with about 60 percent of the credit and debit card market, MasterCard, with 25 percent, American Express, with 13 percent, and Discover, with 2 percent. Current privacy laws do not adequately protect consumers and their data and there are growing concerns over the monetization of people’s financial data through surveillance capitalism. In contrast, cash is more anonymous as it allows for transactions to happen without the exchange of information, helping to protect consumers’ data and privacy.

The Case for Cards

Cards Provide a Digital Paper Trail

Each time a card or digital payment method is used it creates a digital footprint of each transaction which can be tracked by the government and financial institutions if needed. As a result, card and digital payments help to reduce financial crimes such as money laundering, tax evasion, bribery , and other cash-reliant crimes.

Many financial crimes occur with the use of cash as it is difficult to track cash transactions. However, digital payment methods create a record of each transaction, making illegal financial activities easier to identify.

Cards are Contactless

Cards and digital payment methods facilitate contactless payments, which have become important since the coronavirus pandemic began. The pandemic has brought about increased concerns around virus transmission, and since the use of cards and coins involves a lot of handling by different people, many have opted for more contactless payment methods to reduce the risk of infection.

This has led to an increase in the use of cards and digital payment methods such as smartphones, and wearable devices, with 40 percent of Canadians stating they used their mobile wallets more often to pay for store purchases since the COVID-19 pandemic started .

Cards Are a Cheaper Alternative to Cash

It can be expensive for businesses to handle cash. While some businesses prefer cash to avoid the 3 percent processing fee that credit card companies charge, research from the ILH Group shows that handling cash is costing many businesses more. The report shows that retailers’ cash-handling costs range from 4.7 percent to 15.3 percent depending on their retail segment.

According to the same report, cash handling processes are costing businesses an estimated 100 to over

500 labor hours a month per store , which can be saved by automating some of their cash handling processes and switching to cashless payment methods.

The Verdict

So, which is better, cash or card? There are benefits to both methods of payment; cash allows for the financial inclusion of all members of society, helps to protect people’s data and privacy, and reduces the risk of technological issues and cyberattacks. Cards, on the other hand, help to prevent and identify financial crime, offer contactless payment methods in a post-COVID world, and are often a cheaper alternative to handling and managing cash. Both payment methods have something to offer our society, and there will likely be a place for each as we move forward.

Electric Vehicles

Thu, 11 May 2023 16:39:53 GMT

The Future of Sustainable Driving

Electric Vehicles (EVs) have changed the way we view sustainable driving. With the increased concern for climate change in the last decade, more and more car brands are joining the EV revolution. With Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles generating 4.6 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per year, EVs present the possibility of decreasing or potentially eliminating these transportation-related emissions.

Instead of the traditional ICE that gas-powered cars house, EVs are equipped with an electric motor and batteries to store and transfer energy into power. Compared to ICE vehicles, which require gas or diesel, EV owners simply plug their car into a charger and ‘fuel’ up. This new method of transportation is not only cost-effective but also promotes decarbonization and sustainable living.

The International Energy Agency predicts that EV use will rise from 4 million vehicles in 2018 to 120 million by 2030. As more countries enforce stronger environmental policies, that number could hit 300 million by 2030.

This article will look at the potential advantages and disadvantages of Electric Vehicles compared to Internal Combustion Engine vehicles.

Advantages of Electric Vehicles

Lower Carbon Footprint Over Time

Unlike ICE vehicles, EVs generate significantly less carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than ICE vehicles as they don’t require gasoline. Their batteries require electricity which is readily available for owners to quickly charge up.

Though the vehicles don’t directly emit CO2 emissions, the production of lithium-ion batteries does. The manufacturing process of these batteries results in a higher rate of emissions than the production of ICE vehicles. Depending on where the batteries are produced, this could be up to 30 to 40 percent more emissions than the production of traditional combustion engines.

EVs also require electricity to ‘fuel’ the batteries. Many places in the world rely on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or petroleum to power their electricity grids . Because EVs depend wholly on electricity and can hold between 28.9 kWh and 200 kWh , depending on the vehicle, this means their overall emissions depend on how the electricity is produced .

For example, charging an electric vehicle on a grid powered by coal, natural gas, or petroleum can generate 2.23, 0.91, and 2.13 pounds of C02 per kilowatt respectively. However, compared to ICE vehicles, which generate 4.6 metric tons of CO2 annually , the emissions used to power the EV battery is minimal.

An EV in the USA would typically generate 200 grams of emissions per mile, whereas an ICE vehicle would typically generate 404 grams per mile. Over time EV emissions are predicted to decrease to about 50 grams per mile by 2050.

Bearing in mind the production process, manufacturing of batteries, and charging, the emissions produced during the lifespan of EVs are significantly less than that of ICE vehicles when considering the total emissions savings over time.

Improved Torque, Handling, and Efficiency

The overall driving experience of EVs has proven to be significantly better than ICE vehicles. The first aspect is the torque, which is instantly generated by the electric current and magnetic fields in the motor. In an ICE vehicle, this process takes much longer as the gas must combust and turn the crankshaft. When comparing a US $10,000 Chevy Spark EV to a Ferrari, the EV provides more torque .

EVs typically have a lower center of mass. This is due to the way the battery pack is distributed across the bottom of the chassis. Though it is the heaviest component, it replaces the large and bulky gas engine with an electric one. With much of the weight at the bottom of the car, it assists with maneuvering and sticking to the road.

Finally, electric motors are significantly more efficient than an internal combustion engine due to the process of converting energy. In an electric motor, 85 percent of electrical energy converts into motion, compared to an ICE which converts less than 40 percent. According to the Department of Energy , 77 percent of the electrical energy from the grid assists in turning the wheels in an EV, whereas only 12-30 percent of energy from burning fuel goes into moving the wheels.

Reduced ‘Fuel’ and Maintenance Expenses

The savings from fuel alone has created a huge draw to EVs. For example, with a price per kilowatt-hour of $0.13, the average cost to charge an EV with a 200-mile range is $9.00.

Annually, EV owners should expect to spend around $530 to charge their vehicle with a daily cost of $1.45 to charge at night. Comparing an ICE vehicle, an owner would expect to spend $2,500 (~$7.00/day) in annual fuel costs. Though the daily savings may not seem significant, the average new vehicle ownership is around 7 years. Over this time, an EV owner would spend $3,700 in ‘fuel’, compared to an ICE owner who would spend $17,500 in fuel; a total of $13,790 in savings.

ICE vehicles also require more maintenance such as oil changes and engine maintenance. Looking purely at the cost, to maintain an ICE vehicle works out to be $0.101 per mile . Comparing this to EVs, the cost is significantly lower at $0.061 per mile. With the average vehicle traveling around 13,000 miles per year , an EV owner would save $520 annually and $3,600 over seven years in maintenance costs.

Disadvantages of Electric Vehicles

Required Public and Private Infrastructure

EVs rely heavily on public and private infrastructure, much like ICE vehicles rely on gas stations. Over 80 percent of EV owners charge at home overnight. When commuting and traveling, however, public infrastructure is necessary. Typically, home chargers are considered Level 1, meaning they can charge at a rate of 2-5 miles per hour , or Level 2, charging at a rate of 10-20 miles per hour . Level 3 chargers, or superchargers, which are more often deployed as public or private infrastructure, are capable of charging at a rate of 60-80 miles over 20 minutes.

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory , at least 3.4 Level 3 and 40 Level 2 chargers are required per 1,000 EVs. Assuming that there are 35 million EVs on the road in the US by 2030, there will need to be at least 50,000 charging stations to meet this recommendation.

With the addition of thousands of charging stations, power grids will also need to be upgraded to facilitate increased use. Specifically, Level 3 chargers require the same level of electricity as a whole neighborhood at once, putting significant pressure on existing capacity and aging equipment.

Range Anxiety and Long-Distance Driving

Range anxiety is common a stress among EV owners as chargers aren’t as readily accessible as gas stations are. Similarly, while ICE vehicles only a few minutes to fuel, EVs can take anywhere from 6 minutes to 26 hours to charge up to a 100-mile range.

Like ICE vehicles, city and highway driving have different range efficiencies. However, for EVs, the city range outperforms the highway range efficiency. When EVs are traveling at low and variable speeds, the battery can recapture energy , effectively ‘re-charging’ the battery. This ultimately creates better city range efficiency. When traveling at higher speeds, energy consumption increases drastically. The faster the electric motor spins, the less efficient it becomes. The battery may also drain faster when using comfort settings such as air conditioning or seat warmers.

When it comes to driving long-distance, your trip time may be extended to account for multiple charging stops. All of this is dependent on the vehicle's range, the speed on the highway, and the distance traveled. This variability can be a barrier to adoption over ICE vehicles.

Temperature Conditions Affect Range

Temperature and weather conditions pose a potential disadvantage for EVs. Most of North America will experience extreme heat, extreme cold, or both. In the cold, below -20 degrees Celsius, the battery life can decrease as much as 40 to 50 percent as the temperature impacts the storage and release of energy. The battery will regain full capacity once the cold subsides or if you plug in the car to ‘warm’ it up.

On the flip side, any temperature above 21 degrees Celsius will also harm the battery life as the total range starts to drop faster than the actual distance traveled. Though the decrease isn’t as significant as in the cold, the heat does affect the range. In some cases, battery loss isn’t a huge problem, for instance, in cars with 300–500-mile ranges. However, cars with a smaller range, such as 200 miles, would require more charging during these extreme temperatures.

Electric Vehicles – The Future of Driving

When comparing the performance, efficiency, and sustainability of EVs and ICE vehicles, EVs are the future in sustainable driving. Considering how much people rely on their vehicles, over time, drivers will benefit from decreasing their carbon footprint, fuel costs, and maintenance expenses. As more charging stations are deployed and the infrastructure required to support EVs is built out, EVs will continue to become a more viable replacement for the traditional internal combustion engine and will grow to become the new standard for personal transportation.

Does Plastic Recycling Work?

Thu, 11 May 2023 16:37:02 GMT

The Benefits and Limitations of Recycling

Plastic is a miracle material. Since it was introduced nearly seven decades ago during the third industrial revolution , plastic has become ubiquitous. The challenge today is to clean up the waste from the era of throwaway culture and advance toward a more sustainable circular plastics economy .

Recycling offers the potential for sustainable plastic usage without the adverse effects of pollution. But recycling, on its own, is not enough to overcome the vast amount of plastic waste that has been created.

This article, the second in a series looking at plastic and plastic pollution, will examine both the positives and negatives which must be carefully weighed to assess how best to approach plastic recycling.

Pros of Recycling

Reduction of Plastic Waste in the Environment

Today, an estimated 300 million tonnes of plastic end up in the waste stream annually. To put this in perspective, the entire weight of all 7.75 billion people alive is approximately 321.9 million tonnes. Humanity creates its own weight in plastic every year.

It’s estimated that there will be 12 billion tonnes of plastics littering the aquatic and terrestrial environment by 2050 if we persist at the current rate of plastic pollution without recycling. Plastics in the ocean choke marine life, threaten food security, and lead to increased flooding due to clogged drainage systems. Animals and livestock on land can also mistake plastic for food resulting in serious health consequences. Added to these threats are the known and unknown long-term impacts of microplastics , including abrasion on the digestive systems of organisms that eat them and the fatal accumulation of these microplastics in their systems. Plastic recycling can reduce this impact by preventing plastic waste from ending up in the environment in the first place.

Value Recovery and Creation

There is value in used plastics, and if this value is fully harnessed there could be an abundance of materials for manufacturing new products. We currently only recycle about 9 percent of the plastics we produce. This seems like a tragic underutilization of resources, especially when you consider the types of products and the amount of energy that can be recovered.

Recycling offers the possibility of an effective post-consumer plastics economy . Advancement in recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) means PET bottles can now be recycled back into the same food-grade PET bottles with little or no loss in value. Promising results have also been seen in the pilot-scale study for food-grade recycled polypropylene .

Recycling also creates value in the form of jobs, income, and revenue. For example, the UNFCCC reports how plastic waste collection has empowered women in Ghana. Across the world, various companies of all sizes have been formed around recycling, all of which potentially create jobs and income for more people.

China had been importing waste plastics from other countries for recycling since the 1990s and was among those countries that recognized the value of plastic waste and could harness at least a portion of it. However, in 2017, it began to ban imports as managing domestic waste became more challenging and as data revealed that over 70 percent of the imported waste was eventually discarded.

Augments Other Plastic Waste Management Strategies

On its own, recycling won’t solve the global plastic pollution challenge. It will require multiple approaches and efforts from all stakeholders to move toward a more sustainable and fully circular plastic economy. The World Economic Forum presents a roadmap for integrating multiple measures, including imposing bans on plastics, designing more sustainable products, and developing more effective alternatives.

The elimination of unnecessary plastic use reduces the volume of plastic that can end up as waste. This reduces pressure on recycling infrastructure so that recyclable plastics can remain in the cycle for as long as possible.

Cons of Recycling

Requires Energy and Releases Carbon Emissions

Energy is consumed at all stages of the recycling process . Even before it gets to the recycling facility, energy is consumed to collect, source, and transport the materials to the factory. Automated sorting requires machinery and labor resources, and plastics must be cleaned, shredded, and broken down into smaller particles.

Heat and mechanical shearing then melt and reform the plastic into smaller pellets that can be sold to plastic manufacturers or processed in-house. More energy is then required to form these pellets into new products.

In 2015, the combined emission from landfilling, recycling, and incineration was estimated to be 1.8 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide. Plastics are on course to contribute 17 percent of global emissions by 2050.

Some of this can be addressed through renewable energy sources. Some studies have also explored the possibility of powering mechanical plastic recycling with energy sourced from the chemical recycling of plastic , but at the current level of technology, this has been prohibitive for large-scale commercial applications. Powering recycling with 100% renewable energy can bring down the emission by 51 percent.

Not All Plastics Can Be Safely and Efficiently Recycled

There are many different types of plastics , each with its own properties and attributes. The resin identification number 1 to 6, which are indicated in between the chasing arrows recycle sign, are assigned to the most common ones which are most polluting. These are PET (polyethylene terephthalate), HDPE (high-density polyethylene), PVC (polyvinyl chloride), LDPE (low-density polyethylene), PP (polypropylene), and PS (polystyrene).

The number 7 refers to all other plastics such as nylons, ABS, polycarbonates, and many more. Plastic shopping bags for example are mostly made using LDPE, plastic drink bottles are usually made using PET, and takeaway bowls are made from PP. Not all these types of plastic are equally well suited to recycling.

Mechanical recycling of plastics can degrade it to the point that many plastics lose their physical properties after it’s recycled the first time. Virgin plastics must often be added to recycled plastics to retain some of these properties.

Additionally, stains, glues, labels, printed inks, and other impurities all contribute to less efficient recycling. A green plastic bottle is more difficult to recycle than a clear one, for example. Recent technologies have been introduced to remove ink from plastic packaging. However, this has yet to be scaled up for commercial use.

Further, plastics such as polystyrene and PVC can release toxic compounds during recycling which can result in serious health hazards. Manufacturers must therefore consider the end of life of the product or packaging during the design and production stages.

Collecting and Sorting Plastic for Recycling

Although often overlooked as technically uncomplicated, the process of collecting and sorting plastic poses a major challenge to large-scale recycling.

Once a piece of plastic is out in the environment it is very difficult to get back. It could be washed up on a beach, drifting across an ocean, clogging drainage infrastructure, inside the bellies of whales, or blown around a city street.

As the pressure increases on companies to use more recycled plastic, the surge in demand has increased the price. Recent reports show that the price for rPET has risen to $1 per pound compared to the fraction of a dollar that virgin PET costs. This emerging scarcity is not due to the lack of used PET, there’s plenty in the ocean or landfills, but instead due to the resource input that is required to collect and sort them to get them to food-grade quality.

Redefining the Age of Plastics

Plastic is not inherently harmful to the environment. It is the misuse and mismanagement of plastic that poses the biggest risk. On the flip side, if we could optimally harness the benefits of what was, and still is, a miracle material, we can redefine the age of plastics as one of abundance, sustainability, and endless possibilities.

The ideal plastic cycle is one where the material is produced sustainably, used repeatedly, and, at the end of life, converted back into raw materials to repeat the cycle perpetually.

Whether or not this is possible depends on the technology available. Optimal utilization of the tools of the fourth industrial revolution can greatly assist in creating a more circular plastic economy. Tools such as near-infrared spectroscopy can assist automated sorting and improve the purity of recycled materials.

UNEP estimates that the cost of cleaning up plastic pollution in the future far exceeds what it would cost to implement strategies to stop plastics from littering the environment today. Considering the advantages and disadvantages, at the very least, plastic recycling becomes necessary to keep the plastic in the supply loop for as long as possible.

You may be interested in: Banning Single-Use Plastics – What are the Pros and Cons?

Banning Single-Use Plastics

Tue, 09 May 2023 16:53:01 GMT

What are the Pros and Cons?

In 2002, Bangladesh became the first country to ban single-use plastics after following the Indian state of Sikkim’s ban on plastic bags and wrappers in 1998. Since then, 60 countries have introduced some form of single-use plastics ban.

Bans are one of several strategies a government can use to address plastic pollution. Others include improving waste management systems, promoting eco-friendly alternatives, generating public pressure, encouraging voluntary reduction strategies, and introducing other policy instruments such as levies.

As bans and other restrictions become more common, we must understand how they are implemented and enforced and whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. This article is the first in a series on plastic pollution and waste and will explore the pros and cons of banning single-use plastics.

How Have Plastics Bans Been Implemented?

In most countries, plastic bans have been motivated by reports showing the extent of damage done by plastic pollution locally, regionally, or globally. The government then decides that there is a need to take strict action against plastic pollution and that a ban is the appropriate policy instrument.

Typically, the types of plastic that are most problematic, wasteful, or unnecessary are identified. The government then engages with stakeholders and announces the ban to the public well in advance of the implementation.

Enforcement of the ban is typically done through punishments and fines on individuals or businesses that have been found to violate the ban. Kenya has some of the most severe punishments – an offender can be fined the equivalent of $40,000 or face four years imprisonment. In comparison, New York has imposed a fine of $250 for first offenders, $500 for second-time offenders, and $1000 for subsequent offenses. China’s recent ban carries a fine of between $1,545 and $15,460.

Depending on the state, offenders can include businesses that produce, distribute, or improperly dispose of plastic or individuals and other actors attempting to smuggle plastic or sell the banned products to the public.

Pros of a Single-Use Plastics Ban

Reduced Plastic Pollution and Accumulation of Plastic in the Environment

Plastic pollution in the global aquatic environment costs $13 billion every year . Europe alone spends more than $730 million to clean up plastic waste from coasts and beaches, and this is only scratching the surface of the global problem.

Reducing the consumption of plastic helps to keep it out of waterways and other ecosystems. It also reduces pressure on recycling and waste management facilities which require large amounts of energy, materials, time, and labor to process and recycle materials.

According to a 2018 UN report , 30 percent of countries that have banned single-use plastic bags have reported a drastic drop in consumption within one year. In 50 percent of countries, plastics bans have only recently been implemented and there is not enough data to determine if they have been successful.

Despite a lack of long-term data, there are some promising early results. In California, for example, plastic bags accounted for 7.4 percent of the litter collected in 2010. After a ban was implemented in 2016, the bags only accounted for 3 percent. European countries including Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, and Greece have all reported a significant drop in plastic consumption and litter, while in Africa, Rwanda, Eritrea, and Morocco have all seen a reduction of plastic waste in drains, waterways, and landfills.

Positive Impact on Tourism and International Relations

Reducing plastic waste can help position a country as a leader in sustainability, environmentalism, and international cooperation. Some countries have been able to use this to improve their image and standing on the international stage and attract tourists and other visitors. In fact, a comparison study found that countries that depend more heavily on tourism are more likely to introduce a ban to bolster their green reputation.

Rwanda serves as a leading example of government action toward addressing plastic pollution. In 2005, the Rwandan government introduced a law banning single-use plastics. Its capital, Kigali, was nominated one of the cleanest cities in Africa by UN-Habitat just two years later.

This perception has resulted in a significant boost to the tourism industry . In 2000, tourism revenues were below $20 million. By 2016, they had grown to more than $374 million. Kenya, also dependent on tourism, later introduced a ban of their own in an effort to compete with Rwanda for regional environmental leadership.

Increased Innovation in Sustainable Plastics and Packaging

Bans create demand for more sustainable options to single-use plastics , driving innovation and investment in new technologies. As more countries implement bans or other restrictions, businesses and individuals are incentivized to find alternatives.

In many cases, the funds raised from fines and other enforcement measures are diverted to strengthen more sustainable systems and waste management facilities. Funds can be used to build recycling plants, support research and development into alternatives such as bioplastics, or develop energy recovery programs that capture the potential energy stored within waste plastics.

Cons of a Single-Use Plastics Ban

Business Power and Lobbying

The implementation and enforcement of a ban on single-use plastics are heavily influenced by the strength of the plastics industry within a country. A proposed ban is likely to face resistance by businesses, manufacturers, chemical companies, and others.

Rwanda, which has implemented a strict ban since 2008, has hardly any existing plastic manufacturing companies. The US, in contrast, has more than 880 plastic and resin manufacturing companies. In New York, a ban has faced lawsuits and other opposition . Seventeen states even have policies against banning single-use plastics due to the potential for severe economic hardship to plastic and recycling companies.

Alternatives May Be Worse

Alternatives to single-use plastics such as reusable polypropylene bags, cotton bags, and thicker polyethylene bags are not necessarily better for the environment. For example, reusable polyethylene bags must be used at least 50 times before recycling .

Cotton is an even worse offender. Though it is biodegradable, cotton requires more energy, water, and land resources to produce. An organic cotton shopping bag needs to be reused as many as 20,000 times to offset its environmental impact. Similarly, paper bags are also more energy-intensive and require harmful chemicals such as sodium hydroxide. Paper bags would need to be reused up to 40 times to have a better environmental impact than plastic. If people respond by simply using cotton or other materials, a ban on single-use plastic can end up making the problem worse.

Cost of Enforcement and Implementation

Successful implementation requires inspection, enforcement, and support to ensure compliance. New York, for example, has three government agencies dedicated to carrying out annual inspections or investigations into businesses. The Department of Sanitation also keeps an updated list of restrictions and suitable alternatives, as well as training and educational materials to assist businesses in how to understand and comply with the ban.

While these are necessary measures, they come at an added cost to the system in the form of staff time, administration, logistics, and resources. Some of these costs are covered by the revenue from fines, but improved compliance ends up leading to lower revenue as fewer fines are handed out. When considering how governments can generate revenue from plastics policy, a tax on plastic may be a more suitable alternative to an outright ban.

How Can Governments Successfully Reduce Plastic Waste?

Reducing plastic waste is in everyone’s interest. Plastic disrupts local ecosystems, waterways, and infrastructure, and this can have serious implications for both human and wildlife populations.

The United Nations presents a 10-step roadmap outlining how governments can successfully implement bans, levies, and other policy instruments. The list includes targeting the most problematic and unnecessary plastics first, consulting with stakeholders, assessing alternatives and the expected impact, educating the public, and incentivizing businesses.

Governments should also consider how a ban may disproportionately impact low-income demographics and identify alternative policy options that would reduce the need for plastics in the first place. How each local, regional, or national level government approaches the problem will depend on various factors that will differ across each jurisdiction.

As bans become more common, the initial data suggests that they can work to reduce plastic waste, but only if they are clearly communicated, properly implemented, and effectively enforced.

Generic vs Brand Name Drugs

Tue, 09 May 2023 16:21:14 GMT

How do Pharmaceuticals compare?

There are a lot of questions about generic medications. Are they equivalent to name-brand drugs? Why are there generic versions of some drugs and not others? What are the differences? Which are better?

Generic medications have the same active ingredients as their name-brand counterparts. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows for a 20 percent variation in the active ingredient of generic medication, but, in most cases, the amount of active ingredient varies by around 4 percent. Generic drugs are also required to be the same as the name brand when it comes to quality, dosage, strength, and administration. There are no real guidelines for inactive ingredients , as long as they are safe to consume.

Some drugs do not have a generic version. Sometimes, this is due to patents. The current period for patenting pharmaceuticals is 20 years, during which time only the name-brand can be sold. Once the patent has expired, generic versions can be produced for sale. In other cases, it may be difficult to replicate an ingredient or process used to create a drug even if the patent has already expired.

This article is the first in a series on pharmaceuticals. It will explore the similarities and differences between generic and name-brand medications based on cost, efficacy, safety, side effects, and access.

The information here discusses generic medications in general. In all cases, it is best to discuss your individual prescriptions and treatment options with a doctor or pharmacist.

Cost

When generic medications were first introduced in the U.S. in 1984, the primary focus was to reduce the cost of medications. In general, generic drugs cost 80-85 percent less than the name-brand equivalent . In one study , generic drugs were found to save $1.67 trillion in U.S. healthcare costs from 2007-2016.

There are two reasons why name-brand medications cost more. The first is that name-brand medications must go through extensive clinical trials before they can be approved for treating a specific disease, ailment, or indication. These trials are often expensive, and companies pass these costs on to the consumer.

Generic drugs can be sold by several companies, increasing competition and driving down the price. Further, if a company wants to sell a generic drug, they will only be approved if they can sell it at a lower price than all existing generic versions of that drug.

Efficacy

When generic drugs were approved in the U.S., most of the drugs were manufactured in the U.S. or Europe. They were highly regulated and generally just as effective and name-brand versions. Today, many generic medications are manufactured in India or China. This has somewhat affected the quality control of generic drugs and the ability of regulators to ensure compliance.

While the FDA has the right to audit and inspect all pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, the laws of other countries vary. In the U.S., the FDA can show up unannounced to inspect the facilities. However, in India or China, the FDA must give notice of the inspection and is only able to inspect the facilities every few years. It’s therefore difficult to know what’s going on in those facilities between inspections.

Because the efficacy of name-brand drugs is already known, generic drugs with the same active ingredient do not have to prove whether the drug will have the same effect.

Despite these potential risks, a large study found that there was only a 3.5 percent difference in the absorption rate between generic drugs and their name-brand counterparts.

Safety

There have been some recent recalls of generic drugs such as metformin and ranitidine due to the presence of carcinogens, but instances like these are fairly rare. The overwhelming majority of generic drugs are just as safe and effective as their name-brand equivalents.

Generic drugs are required to go through rigorous testing to make sure that any other ingredients are safe. The FDA also tests the sturdiness of the container, how long the unused drug takes to break down, and whether the drug manufacturer can consistently and correctly make the drug. These tests are administered before a generic drug is approved for use by the FDA.

Side Effects

All pharmaceuticals have the potential for side effects. There is the possibility that the generic versions of medications may have different side effects due to differences in the inactive ingredients. However, the majority of studies show that, in general, there is no significant difference .

There are some notable exceptions. A Canadian study examined data for 24 months before and 12 months after generic versions of the blood pressure medications losartan (U.S. brand name Cozaar), valsartan (Diovan), and candesartan (Atacand) went on the market. Before the generic versions became available, 10 percent of patients taking the drugs had to go to the emergency room or be hospitalized each month. The rates of hospitalization changed to 8 percent for losartan, almost 12 percent for valsartan, and 14 percent for candesartan. However, the study notes that something else may have caused the increase in hospitalizations.

Access

Generic versions of drugs can be found in many over-the-counter medications next to or nearby their name-brand versions. For prescription medications, a generic version is often offered by the pharmacist instead of the name brand. Generic versions have become so popular that on many prescription pads used by doctors, there is a clause stating, “This prescription will be filled generically unless signed online stating ‘filled as written’”. It is generally assumed that a prescription will be filled generically unless the doctor specifically states otherwise.

Choosing Between Name-Brand and Generic Medications

Generic medications are safe, effective, and lower cost. They are easy to access, and, in most cases, nearly identical to their name-brand versions.

That said, there are times when an individual may choose a name-brand drug. For example, some drugs don’t have a generic version due to patents or difficulties creating a specific ingredient. In other cases, some drugs have a narrow therapeutic index , meaning a tiny change in dosage or blood concentration of the medication can have serious health consequences. Some examples include anti-epileptic medications, blood thinners, or thyroid medications.

Finally, some people respond poorly to generic versions or find that the generic version is not as effective. While this is rare, those individuals will work with their doctor to find the right medication for them.

Generic medications have been highly successful since they were first introduced. This article is for informational purposes only, and you should never change your medications without talking to a doctor or pharmacist. If you notice a change in the way you respond to medication, you should immediately seek medical advice.

Artificial Turf vs. Natural Grass

Tue, 09 May 2023 16:15:56 GMT

Which Is Better for Sports Fields?

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Legal Sports Betting

Tue, 09 May 2023 16:10:39 GMT

What Does It Mean for Individuals, Governments, and Sports Organizations?

Sports betting has been illegal in Canada and most of the U.S. until recent years. Despite this, it’s long been a lucrative and growing industry with much of the activity happening illegally or outside of government regulations.

The U.N. estimates that the global illegal sports betting market is worth nearly $1.7 trillion. In Canada, government reports indicate that $10 billion is spent each year on illegal, black-market betting and an additional $4 billion on grey-market sites linked to offshore markets where gambling is legal.

Recently, however, this once illegal industry has been brought under government regulation. A 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down a federal law that banned sports betting outside of Nevada. In 2021, Canada passed federal legislation that legalized single-game sports betting .

In both countries, states and provinces are now free to set regulations and laws around gambling on sports. Legal sports betting already takes place in 30 U.S. states plus DC , while every Canadian province and territory outside of Nova Scotia has some level of legalized betting.

Like the prohibition on alcohol or the recent legalization of recreational cannabis, many of the arguments in favor of legalized sports betting are centered around regulating and taxing an activity that is already taking place. On the other hand, gambling can be an addictive and damaging activity that has impacts at both the individual and societal levels.

This article will examine some of the arguments that support and oppose the legalization of sports betting.

The Arguments in Favor of Legalized Sports Betting

Regulation and Consumer Protection

It’s generally understood that, regardless of the law, people are already betting on sports. Many of the existing black-market platforms are linked to organized crime or are simply offshore companies operating legally in their own countries. As a result, bettors have little to no protection in the case of a dispute. For example, there is no guarantee that an illegal betting platform will payout a bet, especially large bets, and there is no legal recourse available to the bettor. Legalizing sports betting allows governments to regulate the industry, set standards, and increase consumer protections. Restrictions can also be put in place that set limits on compulsive and potentially harmful gambling behavior. Further, a legalized industry allows for more visibility into potential integrity issues such as match-fixing , discussed further below as a potential risk.

Increased Tax Revenue

Of course, governments don’t just want to regulate gambling on sports – they also want the ability to tax it. Illegal or offshore platforms don’t pay tax, and governments want their share of the massive revenues these companies can bring in.

After legalizing recreational cannabis usage in 2012, the U.S. state of Colorado has collected over $1.6 billion in fees and taxes. Many jurisdictions are hoping for a similar tax windfall from the legalization of sports betting. In British Columbia, the BCLC estimates that single sports betting would generate between $125 - $175 million in additional revenue each year. New Jersey, which already has one of the most advanced sports betting markets in the U.S., raised nearly $50 million in tax revenue in 2020 despite the widespread cancellation of games due to the pandemic. Across the U.S, nearly $800 million has been collected in taxes since 2018.

There is some concern that the tax rates and fees imposed on legal sports betting will make these platforms less attractive to consumers. The NCSL reports that most U.S. states charge between 5 and 20 percent taxes on betting, while Pennsylvania charges more than 33 percent. Unimpeded by these additional costs, black-market sites can offer lower prices and better payouts, keeping consumers on their platforms and hindering the switch to legal businesses.

New Sponsorship and Revenue Opportunities

It’s not just governments that are eager for new revenue streams. Despite a long history of hesitation and fears around the impacts of gambling, professional sports leagues are now signing huge sponsorship and licensing deals with sports betting platforms.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver was the first of the major North American sports to publicly speak out in favor of legalized betting in 2014. Since then, the NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL have all partnered with bookmakers in multi-million-dollar deals.

It’s not just the leagues that have changed their approach – clubs and broadcasters have also gotten in on the action. MLB’s Chicago Cubs, for example, signed an exclusive deal with DraftKings worth $100 million. Similarly, NBC Sports agreed to a five-year deal worth $500 million with PointsBet.

Despite the massive numbers, sports organizations should be cautious in how they approach these partnerships. A 2020 survey of soccer fans found that a third would be put off from buying their club shirt if it had a betting sponsor, while nearly two-thirds believed that the current restrictions on gambling ads did not go far enough.

The Arguments Against Legalized Sports Betting

Gambling Can Be an Addictive and Damaging Behavior

Widespread access to gambling platforms increases the risk of addictive or problematic gambling behavior. Problematic gambling can lead to high rates of debt, increased risk of psychological difficulties, poor workplace or school performance, and other challenges that can negatively impact an individual.

It’s estimated that 6 percent of college students in the U.S. have a serious gambling problem. A study by the National Council on Problem Gambling showed that sports bettors in particular had significantly higher levels of problem gambling than those who gambled on other activities and that the risk of addiction is higher for young adults.

Aggressive advertising campaigns and the rise of online and mobile betting platforms have increased these risks. One survey found that sports bettors who use mobile devices have a higher incidence of problem gambling and that gambling problems increase with online betting.

New Jersey, which as mentioned above has one of the most developed legal sports betting industries in the U.S., found that more than a quarter of all calls to the gambling hotline were related to sports betting.

Increased Access for Young and Underage Bettors

Concerns around access are not only limited to adults. The rise of online and mobile platforms has been found to increase access for young and underage bettors. This is highly concerning, as studies have found that even exposure to simulated gambling games that use a virtual currency is linked to an increased risk of monetary gambling and gambling problems.

Young people already have higher rates of problem gambling than adults. A Canadian study conducted from 2012-2013 found that 41.6 percent of adolescents had gambled in the past 3 months and that the most popular form of gambling was online sports betting. Compared to those who only gambled at casinos or other physical locations, a significantly higher proportion of youth online gamblers had high or low-to-moderate levels of problematic gambling.

Online platforms lack many of the security measures put in place at physical locations. Age verification and ID checks are often only done upon the creation of an account, meaning a youth can simply access an adult’s account and bet without restriction or supervision.

Match-Fixing and Integrity Challenges

The resistance to sports betting from leagues and other organizations has centered around the risk of match-fixing and other integrity issues. Massive amounts of money can change hands from a single match, and this can lead to bribes and other attempts to affect the results.

The COVID-19 pandemic has coincided with a spread of match-fixing. A recent Guardian article showed that, despite fewer games played in 2020, the amount of suspicious activity and match-fixing increased across the 26 sports surveyed.

Much of the activity has shifted away from the major professional sports leagues to lower-level leagues, less popular sports, and volunteers, officials, or other actors besides the athletes themselves. Paid at lower rates and generally less observed than professional athletes, these individuals are more susceptible to bribes and are therefore more easily influenced.

Despite this, a Transparency International report suggests that the legalization and regulation of sports betting will actually help to control the problem of match-fixing . The increased attention on the industry can help to catch suspicious activities earlier, while agreements between the leagues, betting platforms, and regulatory bodies can ensure that information is shared and that any issues are reported and investigated immediately.

Australia, for example, which has a long history of legal sports betting, allows sports organizations to request operators undertake an integrity check. Similarly, the regulatory body in France has access to all players’ betting information.

Legal Sports Betting Is a Big Industry That Will Continue to Grow

Despite the risks and challenges associated with sports betting, the trend is currently pointing to a more open, legalized, and regulated market across North America. Enticed by huge potential tax revenues and the ability to wrestle control away from organized crime and other black-market participants, governments are enacting laws to allow and control sports betting.

Like any form of gambling, individuals should set limits and only gamble what they are prepared to lose. Legal platforms should provide tools that allow you to control the amount of money and time that you spend on the site. If you are concerned about your gambling behavior, contact the National Helpline in the U.S. or your provincial gambling hotline in Canada.

Wind Energy

Tue, 09 May 2023 16:05:28 GMT

How Should Wind Fit Into the Global Energy Mix?

Wind energy has the potential to reshape the way we produce power. As the world transitions away from fossil fuels, wind energy presents an opportunity to generate renewable, low-emission, and low-cost energy.

There are two main types of wind energy – onshore and offshore. Both use the wind to turn a large turbine and generate electricity. Onshore wind is located on land, typically in open areas such as agricultural fields, while offshore is installed in large bodies of open water. Onshore wind is the most common source of wind energy because of its lower costs and relative ease of installation. In the future, offshore wind will play an increasingly larger role due to its higher generating capacity and lower variability.

This article is part of a series on alternative energy sources. It will explore the advantages and disadvantages of wind energy and show how it can play a role in the global energy mix.

How Is Wind Energy Used Today?

Wind energy made up just 2.2 percent of the global energy mix in 2019. However, global wind capacity has grown rapidly in the past two decades and is projected to continue to accelerate. There were only 24,322 megawatts (MW) of total installed capacity in 2001. By 2020, that number had grown to more than 742,000 MW. By 2025, more than 112,000 MW of new capacity is projected to be added each year.

Despite this massive growth, wind energy remains concentrated in a few countries. China is by far the leader in total installed capacity with more than 237,000 MW, followed by the U.S. with 105,400 MW and Germany with 61,300 MW. Outside of the top nine countries, the rest of the world has a total capacity of just 10,512 MW.

Some smaller countries rely heavily on wind. In Denmark, for example, wind energy accounts for more than 56 percent of its electricity . Uruguay (40 percent), Lithuania (36 percent), and Ireland (35 percent) also have a large share of wind energy. Canada, for comparison, produces 5.35 percent of its total electricity from wind.

Advantages of Wind Energy

Renewable and Low Emissions

Like solar, wind is renewable because nothing is consumed to generate electricity. The wind doesn’t stop blowing because it passes through the turbine, and more wind energy is freely available indefinitely.

With nothing burned or consumed, wind turbines can generate power without emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases.

Considering the emissions produced to manufacturing the equipment, transport materials, and construct the turbines, wind power has the lowest lifetime emissions rate at just 4 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour of energy (g CO2/kWh).

Beyond emissions, wind turbines can negatively impact local wildlife populations. An estimated 140,000 – 500,000 bird deaths occur each year due to turbines in the U.S., though steps can be taken to mitigate this issue by placing turbines away from habitats or migratory routes. While this is a concern, it’s also important to recognize that the number of birds killed by turbines is relatively low compared to the 1.3 billion – 4 billion birds killed by domestic cats or the 365 million – 988 million birds that die from collisions with windows or tall buildings each year.

Low Cost to Build and Operate Onshore Wind Farms

Onshore wind farms are relatively simple and cost-effective to build, especially compared to other energy sources.

The cost of a 2-3 MW utility-scale wind turbine is typically between $2.6 million and $4 million . In total, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that onshore wind costs just $1,846/kW of generating capacity, while Canada’s National Energy Board predicts this could drop to as low as $800/kW by 2040. Compared to hydropower ($2,769/kW) and nuclear ($6,336/kW), wind power takes less time and is far less expensive to build.

Once installed, operating costs are very low and are mostly associated with regular maintenance. Only 20-25 percent of wind’s total power production costs can be attributed to ongoing operations. By contrast, fuel and other operational costs make up as much as 60 percent of the total costs of a natural gas-fired plant.

Wind Power Is Safe

One way to measure safety is to compare the number of deaths due to accidents or pollution per terawatt hour (TWh) of power generated.

Like all renewable energy sources , wind is incredibly safe and contributes to very few deaths. Brown coal, the deadliest of all fuel sources, has a death rate of 32.72/TWh. The death rate for wind is just 0.04/TWh, with most deaths occurring due to workplace accidents.

Beyond deaths, many people are concerned about the impact of wind turbines on human health, especially because of low levels of noise. While research is ongoing, a 2015 analysis of 25 peer-reviewed studies found that living near wind turbines had no impact on human health.

Disadvantages of Wind Energy

Intermittent and Variable

A wind turbine does not generate power if the wind is not blowing. Along with solar, wind is known as a variable renewable energy source (vRES). Without improvements to storage technology, onshore wind alone cannot meet baseload energy requirements, especially as demand varies throughout the day.

Capacity factor is one way to measure how often a facility is generating power at full capacity. In 2020, wind achieved an average capacity factor of 35.4 percent – more than solar but less than hydropower or nuclear.

Offshore wind farms have the potential to greatly improve the capacity factor to the point where wind could become reliable enough to be used for baseload power generation . By 2022, it is predicted that offshore wind will reach a capacity factor of 51 percent, nearly equivalent to what’s currently achieved by natural gas.

Land Availability and Usage

Wind turbines can’t just be placed anywhere. They need to be in areas with the right weather conditions, close to transmission lines, and far from houses and population centers. Resistance to wind turbines is often high in rural communities due to their appearance, height, and potential for noise.

Taken on their own, each turbine only requires about 10 meters of land . However, a 2009 study found that, on average, wind energy requires up to 57 hectares (0.57 km2) per MW. One calculation used this number and found that Canada would require nearly 27,000km2 of land to replace the power that currently comes from fossil fuels. To fully replace coal, the U.S. would need more than 200,000km2, or a land area roughly the size of Nebraska.

Unlike solar arrays, agriculture and other activities can still take place on the land surrounding the turbines. That said, land usage remains a significant limitation to widespread onshore wind energy.

Offshore Wind Is Very Expensive

Given the land requirements mentioned above, resistance from local populations, and capacity limitations, the future of wind will need to include offshore wind farms. Today, offshore wind only provides 0.3 percent of global power. This is expected to increase, with the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) predicting that more than 205 GW of new offshore wind will be added globally through 2030.

The challenge is that offshore wind is far more costly and challenging to install, and the cost increases the deeper and further out to sea the turbines are built. The U.S. EIA shows that the cost of an offshore wind facility is $5,453/kW. Transmission lines, electrical equipment, and other infrastructure must also be built to transmit the power back to land. Combined with increased wear and tear caused by the moisture and salt, the costs of building and operating offshore wind farms are far greater than onshore.

Wind Is a Highly Promising Renewable Resource for the Future

Wind energy is still in its infancy. Large countries such as China, the U.S., and Germany are all investing heavily in utility-scale wind capacity, while smaller countries such as Denmark have already transitioned a large portion of their energy requirements to wind.

Wind is a low-cost, renewable, and low-emitting source of energy. As offshore wind technology improves and becomes more widely deployed, wind has the potential to meet baseload power requirements at a scale unachievable by current solar technologies and at a lower cost than nuclear. Though the transition away from fossil fuels will take time and significant investment, wind has the potential to play a major role in the energy mix of the future.

The Pros and Cons of Natural Gas

Tue, 09 May 2023 15:21:20 GMT

The Role of a Fossil Fuel in Sustainable Power Generation

Unlike wind, solar, hydropower, or nuclear, natural gas is a fossil fuel that must be burned to release energy. It is non-renewable and releases high levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

That makes natural gas unique in our ongoing series of alternative energy sources. However, natural gas will likely play an important role in the transition toward sustainable energy. It has significant advantages over oil and coal and has the added benefits of being widely available, easily dispatchable, and relatively cost-effective.

This article will explore how natural gas is currently used in the global energy mix and introduce some of the pros and cons of using natural gas alongside other energy sources.

How Is Natural Gas Currently Being Used?

Natural gas makes up 24 percent of the global energy mix . On its own, natural gas makes up a larger share of global energy consumption than all low-emission and sustainable energy sources combined.

The United States is by far the world’s largest consumer and producer of natural gas, producing nearly a quarter of the world’s supply of natural gas and consuming more than 830 billion cubic meters (BCM). Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia follow, while Canada consumed 112 BCM in 2020.

Trinidad and Tobago gets nearly 90 percent of its total energy from natural gas. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Qatar, and Bangladesh all rely on gas for more than 70 percent of their total energy requirements.

Because of falling demand and lower energy usage caused by the pandemic, natural gas production dropped to 3.9 trillion cubic meters (TCM) in 2020. However, this short-term drop is not expected to be an ongoing trend, and by 2040, gas production is expected to grow by 24 percent to 4.85 TCM.

The Advantages of Natural Gas

Low Construction Cost

Though the average cost varies depending on the type of facility and the technologies used, natural gas-fired plants are relatively straightforward and cost-effective to build, especially when compared to other power-generating facilities.

Combustion turbines burn natural gas to spin a turbine. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), combustion turbine facilities can range from as low as $709/kilowatt (kW) of generating capacity for industrial frame turbines to $1,169/kW for aero-derivative turbines.

Combined-cycle plants use a mix of combustion turbines and steam turbines. Waste heat from the gas turbine is harnessed to turn a nearby steam turbine, increasing efficiency and lowering operating costs. The average cost of a combined-cycle facility is around $1,000/kW, though this can rise to $2,471 for a facility built with 90 percent carbon capture or sequestration (CCS).

Despite this variation, natural gas plants are among the cheapest facilities to construct, making them a highly attractive way to increase capacity.

Widespread Availability and Role in Energy Transition

As we transition toward renewable and low-emission energy sources, we still need to ensure robust, reliable, and affordable access to electricity.

The energy currently produced by burning oil and coal must come from somewhere, and, at least in the short-term, today’s renewable energy and storage technologies can’t make up the difference.

Natural gas can be viewed as a bridge to help accelerate away from comparatively worse oil and coal and ease the transition to wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear power. Natural gas releases nearly half the CO2 emissions of coal and produces significantly fewer pollutants, while technologies such as CCS can further reduce emissions. Though it’s not perfect, it’s a significant improvement.

The widespread availability of natural gas resources also makes it an attractive alternative. There are an estimated 205.4 trillion cubic meters of proved reserves that can be reasonably recovered under existing economic and operating conditions.

For countries rich in natural gas resources, like the U.S., natural gas also provides a level of energy independence that reduces the need to rely on oil imports, though, as we will see below, this is not true for every country or region.

Easily Dispatched in Response to Demand

The greatest advantage of natural gas facilities is that they can easily be turned on or off within minutes to respond to fluctuations in demand. As variable power sources such as wind and solar become more prominent, the ability to dispatch power when it’s needed in response to daily spikes, seasonal trends, or short-term capacity requirements is vital to ensuring reliable access to power.

The different types of gas-fired plants can be used to meet different energy needs. Combined-cycle plants are more efficient, making them well-suited to providing baseload power. Combustion turbines, on the other hand, are less efficient and can be turned on for peak times and turned off when demand is low.

The Disadvantages of Natural Gas

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Leaks

Though better than oil or coal, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and still emits greenhouse gases such as CO2. When burned, natural gas has a lifetime emission rate of 78 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (g CO2e/kWh), far lower than coal at 109 g CO2e/kWh. However, natural gas is mostly methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas that is 25 times worse than CO2 over a 100-year period. Unburned natural gas released into the atmosphere due to leaks or other waste can quickly overwhelm the savings.

One study found that a leakage rate of just 2.7 percent is enough to wipe out the climate benefits of using natural gas. Though leakage rates are disputed by industry, governments, and environmental groups, a separate study conducted using satellite data found that 3.7 percent of the gas produced in the Permian Basin leaked into the atmosphere , indicating that emission levels are higher than otherwise reported. In the U.S., 30 percent of methane emissions result from natural gas and petroleum systems.

Environmental Costs of Fracking

Natural gas deposits are located underground. Convention natural gas deposits are fairly simple to access using traditional drilling techniques. But as these easily accessible reserves have been used up, new techniques have been developed to access gas trapped in non-porous rock.

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, uses large volumes of water mixed with chemicals and sand to fracture the material surrounding the gas. Fracking is highly water-intensive, and a single well can use up to 9.6 million gallons of water. Toxic chemicals added to the water or dissolved from the naturally occurring materials in the rock mean that most of the water cannot be restored or treated. It ends up stored underground or in tailing ponds, where it can leak into nearby drinking water supplies.

In 2013, approximately 9.4 million people in the U.S. lived within one mile of a hydraulically fractured well, where they are at risk of increased air pollution and exposure to toxic chemicals known to cause illness, cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders, or birth defects.

Subject to Market Prices and Shortages

Until recently, the low cost of natural gas was part of its advantages over other energy sources. However, as a globally traded commodity, natural gas is subject to price fluctuations and swings caused by supply and demand.

Natural gas prices have risen significantly in 2021, especially in Europe, due to supply disruptions caused by the pandemic, an unexpectedly cold winter, and dwindling storage levels. By mid-October 2021, gas prices in Europe were up 500 percent, while the U.S. saw price increases of 150 percent.

Europe, which relies on imports for 90 percent of its gas, is especially vulnerable to rising prices and reductions in supply from countries like Russia. Already, Europeans are seeing skyrocketing energy costs for electricity and heating. High natural gas prices can also lead to inflation as the cost of sourcing, producing, and distributing goods and services increases.

An Alternative Energy Source That Will Fill a Gap in the Global Energy Mix

In the quest for a more sustainable future, natural gas is just one step on the journey – not the end destination. It will play an important role in the coming years as we move toward more renewable sources of power. With more than 60 percent of current global energy produced by oil and coal, natural gas can help ease the transition while filling a vital gap and ensuring reliable and affordable access to power.

That said, recent price increases, supply shortages, and a growing recognition of the environmental impacts of fracking and leakages will likely temper some of the excitement for natural gas. To successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas should be used alongside continuous investment in other energy sources.

Hydropower

Thu, 04 May 2023 18:56:33 GMT

Is Hydropower a Sustainable Source of Energy?

Hydropower is the largest source of renewable energy worldwide. In 2019, hydropower made up 6.4 percent of global energy consumption , and as countries continue to look for alternatives to fossil fuels, hydropower has the potential to play a much larger role in the global energy mix.

There are two main types of hydropower generating facilities. Conventional hydropower facilities use a dam to store water in a reservoir. Diversion facilities, on the other hand, divert a portion of water through a separate channel. In both cases, water is passed through a large turbine to harness gravitational energy and generate electricity.

This article is part of a series on alternative energy sources and the advantages and disadvantages of each. It will focus primarily on conventional hydropower facilities, though many of the main points can be applied to both. Because hydropower facilities are unique and tailormade to fit their location, generalizations made here may not apply to every facility in every scenario.

How is Hydropower Used Today?

There are nearly 50,000 large dams located around the world. China leads the world with 23,841, followed by the U.S. with 9,263, India at 4,407, and Japan at 3,130.

Canada is the world’s fourth-largest producer of hydropower . It has a total installed capacity of 81,000 megawatts (MW) across more than 1,100 dams.

Hydropower accounts for 24 percent of total power consumption in Canada, 63.2 percent in Norway, and 54.6 percent in Iceland. Some countries, mostly in desert regions with large repositories of oil and gas, produce no hydropower at all.

The Advantages of Hydropower

Flexibility and Responsiveness

Power is not produced or consumed at a constant rate. Consider the changes in energy usage on a hot summer’s day compared to a cool autumn night. Flexibility ensures that a power station can reliably and cost-effectively manage variability without disrupting supply.

Unlike solar, wind, or nuclear, hydropower can be turned on or off to meet the needs of the grid. The reservoir created by dams acts as an energy storage system, almost like a large battery. In response to changes in demand, facilities can quickly and easily increase or decrease the flow of water.

The responsiveness of hydropower will allow it to play a key role in the transition to low greenhouse gas emitting energy. It can serve as a reliable and flexible source of power in addition to more variable sources such as wind and solar, accelerating the adoption of these technologies and reducing the need for other flexible sources such as natural gas.

Efficiency and Low Generating Cost

Very little energy is wasted in the production of hydropower, especially when compared to traditional fossil fuels. Generating stations harness the gravitational energy of falling water to directly spin a turbine. Fossil fuel plants, on the other hand, burn fuel to boil water and then harness the pressurized steam. This extra step results in heat and other waste and reduces the overall efficiency.

According to Natural Resources Canada , hydropower converts more than 90 percent of available energy into electricity, making it the most efficient source. In contrast, the best fossil fuel facilities operate at 60 percent.

Better efficiency directly translates into lower generating costs. A report by the International Renewable Energy Agency found that the global weighted cost of newly commissioned hydropower projects was just $0.047/kilowatt-hour (kWh). More than 90 percent of all hydropower capacity commissioned in 2019 produced electricity for less than the cheapest new fossil fuel-fired project.

Renewable Capacity

There is a massive amount of potential hydro energy. A 2017 study estimated that the theoretical hydropower potential is 52 petawatt-hours/year (PWh), or about one-third of total global energy requirements. Not all of this is accessible due to technological, geographical, and other barriers, but it shows that we have only scratched the surface of total generating capacity.

High capacity is especially important in emerging economies that are in the process of electrifying. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, less than 10 percent of possible hydropower has been developed, leaving an estimated 400 gigawatts (GW) of potential energy, or more than quadruple the power currently generated in all of Africa.

Hydropower is renewable since water is not consumed to generate electricity. The natural water cycle should replenish the reservoir and ensure a constant flow of energy. One important caveat to this, however, is that changes in climate, rainfall, or weather patterns can reduce the flow of water. A recent study suggests that 86 percent of hydropower facilities could see cuts due to variability in rainfall caused by climate change.

This can have serious implications for countries that rely on hydropower for most of their electricity. Zambia, which gets 95 percent of its electricity from dams, suffered a severe drought in 2015 which led to a 50 percent decline in generation and crippling power shortages across the country.

The Disadvantages of Hydropower

High Construction Costs

While hydropower is low-cost and efficient at the point of production, the infrastructure required is often prohibitively expensive. The U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that a conventional hydropower facility costs $2,769/kilowatt (kW) of generating capacity, far more than solar photovoltaic ($1,248/kW) and wind ($1,846/kW).

Further research has found that construction projects are often rife with corruption and end up exceeding projected costs by more than 90 percent. Large dams can take decades to build at a cost of billions of dollars, and this does not include the ongoing maintenance and operating costs as the dam deteriorates over time. Many then fail to generate as much power as anticipated.

A 2014 report by Oxford analyzed 245 dams in 65 countries and concluded that, in the vast majority of cases, dams were not economically viable. Not only did they not recoup the cost of construction, but they also resulted in massive amounts of debt, especially in emerging economies, which crippled the government’s finances.

Long-Term Environmental Damage

As one Slovenian biologist succinctly put it, “When you build a dam, you destroy the single most important thing about a river: the flow. You kill the whole ecosystem.”

The reservoirs created by hydropower dams have a severe impact on surrounding ecosystems. The physical barrier itself intercepts the migration and spawning routes of fish and other animals. It also disrupts the flow of sediment , increasing sediment levels above the reservoir and decreasing them below. High sediment content can result in low-oxygen dead zones that essentially wipe out the habitat of local species, while the fast-flowing “hungry water” below the dam increases erosion.

Further, evaporation from reservoirs increases the amount of moisture in the air to the point that it can affect local rainfall patterns and increase the risk of floods. One study found that 170 cubic kilometers of water evaporate from reservoirs each year, nearly 7 percent of all fresh water consumed by humans.

Beyond damage to wildlife, flooding from dams displaces entire communities. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre claims that dams displace around 80 million people, many of whom are already the most vulnerable and impoverished .

Hidden Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hydropower is considered a low greenhouse gas emitting energy source. This is especially true at the point of production, as water passing through the turbine does not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) or other emissions.

However, some studies are starting to suggest that the reservoirs created by dams can emit high amounts of methane, CO2, and other greenhouse gases due to the breakdown and decomposition of organic materials.

One such study in Bioscience found that reservoirs may produce as much as one billion tons of CO2 equivalents each year , mostly in the form of methane, which is more than the total emissions of Canada. A Brazilian facility was found to emit 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than an oil plant generating the same amount of electricity.

It is important to note that the amount of greenhouse gases released by reservoirs is highly dependent on the location of the dam, the amount of organic material that is flooded, and the technologies and types of facilities used. To reduce the risk, dams should be built in areas with thin soil and low levels of organic materials. They should also be placed away from natural carbon stores such as wetlands, bogs, or marches.

Hydropower Will Undoubtedly Play a Role in Future Energy Production

Hydropower is one of the world’s oldest sources of energy, and it is one that we will continue to use for the foreseeable future. The efficiency, flexibility, and potential capacity of hydropower make it an attractive option that allows for more variable sources of energy to be brought online without compromising on reliability.

However, the high construction costs create a significant barrier to new projects, especially as delays, cost overruns, and corruption result in economically unviable dams in some of the world’s poorest countries.

Additionally, environmental concerns need to be considered. New generating facilities must be placed in areas where they have the lowest impact on surrounding ecosystems, wildlife, and communities. And as research begins to understand more about the potential emissions caused by decomposing organic matter in areas flooded by dams, we must make better decisions about how, where, and when to build dams.

Hydropower has the potential to reshape the way we produce energy. And as we continue to transition away from fossil fuels, it will play an increasingly important role in the global energy mix.

Understanding Cryptocurrency

Thu, 04 May 2023 18:52:39 GMT

How New Technologies Stack Up Against Traditional Banks

In 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto issued a wh ite paper outlining the idea behind Bitcoin. Since then, cryptocurrencies have exploded in popularity, use, and value. There are currently between 5,000 and 8,000 different cryptocurrencies with a combined market cap of $ 1.5 trillion. While most of these are small and relatively unknown, the two most popular, Bitcoin and Ether, are combined to be worth nearly $1 trillion.

As with any new technology, cryptocurrencies offer a wide range of advantages and disadvantages. Institutional and retail investors alike should be aware of the potential risks that come with buying and selling the digital coins, while their future as a true currency remains uncertain without widespread adoption.

Proponents of cryptocurrencies see them as the future of financial services. Those who are more skeptical view them as a risky and speculative investment. This article will compare the benefits of cryptocurrencies against the advantages of banks and other traditional financial institutions.

Decentralized and Not Controlled by Any Single Entity

To understand how cryptocurrencies work, it helps to compare them against traditional fiat currencies such as the US Dollar, British Pound, or Japanese Yen. These currencies are all issued and managed by central banks who implement monetary policies with the goals of, among many others, managing inflation, encouraging spending or saving, and stabilizing the macroeconomic environment against shocks and volatility.

Cryptocurrencies, by contrast, do not have any central authority or governing body. They are at once controlled by everyone and no one. Thousands of individual computers operate on a decentralized , distributed, peer-to-peer network. Together, they process, verify, and facilitate transactions, which are then recorded on the blockch ain. Th e blockchain can be thought of as a permanent and distributed ledger of every transaction that has ever taken place.

This decentralized approach means that cryptocurrencies are free of government policies, central banks, or other authorities. No single entity can influence the entire network, and no one can prevent you from transferring coins, accessing the network, or viewing the public record.

Permanent, Transparent, and Secure Records

Cryptocurrencies and the underlying blockchain technology are extremely effective at validating, authorizing, and recording transactions. Each user has a private and pub lic key. The pr ivate key provides access to the account, while the public key can be shared with anyone to send and receive funds. These are then used to verify the authenticity and integrity of transactions.

Computers are tasked with solving complex mathematical problems to verify the transaction and add it as a block to the existing chain. Participants in the network must ag ree that a transaction is legitimate and reach a consensus before it is confirmed and added. In public blockchains, like those used for Bitcoin, these records are publicly available. User information is kept private through unique IDs, though it’s important to note that these IDs are not truly anonymous and can be lin ked back to individuals with enough effort.

Once written, these records cannot be falsified, removed, or otherwise changed, and because there is no single point of failure, it is nearly impossible for hackers or other malicious actors to take control of the network.

Simplified International Trade and Money Transfers

An emerging and potentially exciting application for cryptocurrencies is their use in facilitating international trade, money transfers, and remittances. The global remittance market was v alued at over $682 billion in 2018, and many crypto companies a re exploring how to facilitate low-cost, convenient, and secure transfers without the need for banks or middlemen.

Access to international transfers is especially useful for individuals that rely on remittances or have historically had limited access to financial services. Cubans , for example, have started to embrace cryptocurrency to make purchases or investments online while avoiding US sanctions. Similarly, one remittance provider has transacted $235 million worth of Bitcoin across 5 countries in Africa. Though this remains a tiny sliver of the overall market, there are promising signs that crypto could be an alternative to traditional financial services.

Beyond individual use, companies have started to use cryptocurrencies for international trade. Bitcoin provides a common global currency that allows users to avoid the complexity, fees, and delays that come with moving money abroad. A typical wire transfer can take up to five days to complete, while most Bitcoin transactions can be completed in under an hour . Companies also gain a layer of protection against fraud or failed payments and a permanent, accurate record of every transaction.

Advantages of Traditional Banking Institutions

Generally Lower Risk and Volatility

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have made headlines for massive price swings that can lead to billions of dollars in gains or losses. Since being valued at $1 in 2011, the price of a single Bitcoin surged to more than $20,000 USD in 2017 before crashing back to hover around $3,000 USD later that year. It rallied again in 2020 to an all-time high of $60,000 before falling back to around $40,000 today.

High risk can mean high reward, but this volatility should cause investors to think carefully about how much they are willing to lose. Small-scale retail investors are especially vulnerable to getting caught up in the hype on the way up, only to lose out when it falls again. Likewise, institutional investors have been hesitant to add such extreme volatility to their portfolios.

A recent Deutsche Bank report predicts that Bitcoin and other currencies will remain “ultra-volatile” due to limited tradability and the outsized impact of a few large investors. Others see volatility as a natural part of the price-discovery process, predi cting that the price will stabilize as the market matures.

Of course, stocks, bonds, and other assets are all subject to risk and volatility, but investors typically have more information available to them and can protect against these risks through diversification . When investing in stocks, for example, investors can review public financial information in addition to technical indicators and price signals to predict the company’s strategy, performance, and future growth.

Stronger Consumer Protections and Recourse

A lack of a centralized authority may be an advantage, but it can also result in some important limitations compared to traditional banks. Banks and brokerages must have insurance to p rotect consumers in case of bankruptcy. Likewise, credit cards must protect against fraudulent transactions or unauthorized activity, and they are empowered to reverse charges and return funds. Similar institutions and regulations do not exist for cryptocurrencies.

This was highlighted in the 2014 bankruptcy o f Mt. Gox. The crypto exchange handled more than 80 percent of global Bitcoin transactions before it was discovered that 850,000 coins had been stolen. At today’s price, this loss would be valued at more than $34 billion. Coin owners had little recourse, though Mt. Gox recently offered creditors up to 90 percent of their remaining coin as reimbursement.

Finally, crypto users are solely responsible for their access to accounts. There is no “forgot password” option, and this has led to some users losing out on millions of dollars worth of coins. All told, an estimated 20 percent of all Bitcoins ever mined, about $140 billion, are thought to be lost or locked in inaccessible wallets.

Easier to Use for Everyday Payments

The biggest advantage of traditional financial services is that they are far easier to use for day-to-day activities. Cash is nearly universally accepted, while the majority of North Americans have access to personal credit and debit cards. With widespread adoption and existing infrastructure, it’s simply more convenient for most people to use.

The previously mentioned volatility also reduces the viability of cryptocurrencies for everyday payments. The rise in price has meant that a cup of coffee purchased with Bitcoin in 2017 would be worth hundreds or thousands of dollars today . Many companies that do accept crypto payments convert to traditional currencies as soon as possible to protect against losses.

Finally, the IRS has classified cr yptocurrencies as ass ets, meaning that users are subject to capital gains and must report the value of the currency at the time of payment. Payment apps help to manage this, but the added layer of complexity is yet another barrier to widespread use.

A 2020 report found that only 1 percent of Bitcoin transactions in the US w ere used to purchase goods or services. There remains a long way to go before cryptocurrencies can seriously compete against the $3.7 trillion spent on credit cards in 2018.

Long-Term Fate of Cryptocurrencies Remains Uncertain

Cryptocurrencies have taken the world by storm since they were first introduced just over a decade ago. But their future remains uncertain, and whether they can overcome the barriers to widespread use and adoption is not yet guaranteed. While some see them as the future of banking, others will find that existing financial services, currencies, and institutions work well enough for most things. Regardless, it is likely that new applications and use cases for cryptocurrencies will continue to emerge, and it will be fascinating to see how this exciting technology evolves and adapts over the coming years.

Nuclear Power

Thu, 04 May 2023 18:49:27 GMT

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power Generation

Global energy consumption is steadily increasing. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that world energy usage will increase by nearly 50 percent by 2050. Much of this demand will come from emerging economies such as China and India, increased global industrial activity, and transportation.

Today, fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas accou nt for more than 80 percent of total energy consumption. As the world shifts toward greener alternatives in response to climate change, this large share must be replaced with sustainable, reliable, and cost-effective energy. Nuclear power is one potential energy source. Making up only 4.3 percent of the global energy mix in 2019, many see nuclear power as an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There are currently over 440 reactors spread across 31 co untries. The United States, China, France, Russia, and South Korea produce the most nuclear power. Slovakia generates the largest percentage of its total energy through nuclear at an impressive 82.3 percent, followed by France at 70.6 percent and Ukraine at 51.2 percent.

This article will explore some of the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power.

The Advantages of Nuclear Power

Low Carbon Emissions

Nuclear power uses a process called fission to split uranium atoms and generate steam which turns a turbine and generates electricity. Unlike coal, oil, or natural gas, nuclear does not produce carbon emissions and is a much cleaner alternative to burning fossil fuels.

When thinking about carbon emissions, it’s also necessary to look at the entire lifecycle of the reactor including construction, transportation of materials, and other processes that need to occur to generate power. A 2017 study in the journal Nature found that, per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, nuclear emitted just 4 grams of CO2. This is nearly identical to wind and solar and far better than the 109 grams produced by coal, the 78 grams produced by gas, or the 97 grams produced by hydroelectric.

Efficient and Reliable Baseload Power

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar may be environmentally friendly, but they cannot fully replace the energy generated by fossil fuels in their current form. They lack the reliability and flexibility required to meet demand and they may not work in all locations or at all times of the day.

Energy isn’t always consumed at the same rate . Daily power consumption varies as people move from work to home or turn off appliances and lights at night. Seasonal changes also occur as people switch on air conditioners or heaters and spend more time indoors to escape the weather.

Nuclear power is both highly efficient and reliable, making it a viable way to provide baseload power – the minimum amount of electricity needed at any given time. Fluctuations can then be met with natural gas or renewables that are easier to turn on or off in response to demand.

The U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy showed that nuclear had the highest capacity factor of any energy source. A typical reactor generated maximum power more than 93 percent of the time. Compare this to a typical coal plant, which operated at just 40.2 percent capacity, or solar field, which operated at just 24.9 percent, and it becomes clear how nuclear can play a role in generating stable and reliable power.

High Safety Record

Disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima have damaged nuclear power’s reputation. Images of mass evacuations, abandoned cities, and radioactive fallout spread around the world and turned the public against nuclear. Germany, which previously had 17 reactors producing nearly 25 percent of its power, decided to phase out all nuclear power by the end of 2022 following the Fukushima meltdown.

Despite its bad reputation, however, nuclear has proven to be an incredibly safe way to generate power. Data from the European Union showed that nuclear power had the lowest number of attributable deaths by energy sourc e.

Further, the World Health Organization estimate s that air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels kills 7 million people each year and accounts for 1 in 8 total deaths.

But what about the disasters? Though clean-up efforts are still ongoing ten years after the Fukushima meltdown, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that there had been no reported adverse health effects among residents directly related to radiation at the site.

The Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

Nuclear Waste and Radioactive Materials

Nuclear waste is one of the first things that comes to mind when thinking about nuclear power – and for good reason. Radioactive waste is a serious problem that does not yet have a permanent solution. Nuclear fuel rods can be used for around 12 – 18 months, at which point they are removed from the reactor and submerged in water for 7 – 10 years to cool. From there, they are transferred into concrete containers and stored in facilities that must be constantly monitored and maintained. This is not a long-term solution, as the waste poses a threat for a t least 1,000 years.

The International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that around 370,000 metric tons of spent fuel have been produced. While some of this has been reprocessed, there are still at least 250,000 metric tons stored in 14 countries. New waste is generated at around 12,000 tons per year, and this would increase if nuclear played a larger role in the global energy mix.

Finland, which is building a new reactor to produce 60 percent of its power from nuclear, is also leading the way when it comes to safely and permanently storing nuclear waste. The country is building a storage facility nearly 1,400 feet underground that will hold more than 6,000 tons of spent fuel before being sealed up and abandoned forever. Because it doesn’t require human intervention, the new site has the potential to act as a viable, long-term solution to the problem of nuclear waste.

Difficult, Expensive, and Slow to Build

Nuclear power plants are complex facilities that must be built to the highest safety standards, often in the face of public opposition. As a result, they are also extremely costly to build. A 2008 report found that the estimated cost of a new 1,100 megawatt (MW) nuclear facility was between $6 billion and $9 billion. The same report also found that the actual costs often exceeded estimates by over 200 percent. A more recent analysis of a new U.S. reactor found the cost rose from an initial $3.5 billion to more than $22 billion in just five years.

Nuclear reactors also take longer to build than other types of power generating stations. A 2019 report showed the average construction time was just under 10 years, while other facilities can typically be built in less than four.

Taken together, the cost to develop and install a typical light-water nuclear reactor was $6,866 per kilowatt (kW) of generating capacity, well above the $3,672/kW for ultra-supercritical coal or the $1,846/kW for onshore wind.

Non-Renewable Resource

Despite its low carbon emissions and efficiency at generating power, nuclear is not renewable like wind and solar. Nuclear reactors use uranium as a fuel source, and this must be mined, refined, enriched, transported, and disposed of.

It’s estimated that there are more than 8 million tons of identified uranium resources available. Existing facilities currently use about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium each year. At current usage, this suggests there is more than 100 years’ worth of supply. However, it’s important to remember that nuclear only accounts for around 4 percent of current energy consumption. If this number grows and nuclear becomes a primary source of power, the limited amount of accessible uranium could pose a significant challenge.

Additionally, the mining and processing of uranium can have negative environmental consequences. Radioactive dust, leaching, increased background radiation, and other toxins are all produced during mining. Toxic tailings that are left over after processing must also be stored in ponds or containment fields and properly cleaned up to limit the impact on the surrounding ecosystems and nearby populations.

Nuclear Power – A Sustainable Way Forward or a Risky Alternative?

Nuclear power will continue to play a role in the global energy mix for some time. While countries like Germany and Japan have decommissioned facilities in response to disasters, others, like China, India, South Korea, and Finland are all moving forward with new facilities to shift away from fossil fuels.

The world must transition from greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources toward a more sustainable future. The cost of new reactors, public opinion, and concerns about radioactive waste will all hold nuclear back from being the primary source of energy any time soon. Looking ahead though, nuclear has the potential to help replace fossil fuels, provide reliable baseload power, and clear the way for the increased use of renewables such as solar, wind, or geothermal. How that happens, and who takes the lead, will be something to watch in the coming decades.

How Should We Move Oil?

Thu, 04 May 2023 18:45:52 GMT

The Pros and Cons of Oil Pipelines Compared to Trucks and Rail.

More than a third of all energy consumed worldwide comes from oil, and its production and use is expected to grow over the next decade.

In 2020, global oil production fell to 88.4 million barrels per day, down from a previous high of 95 million barrels in 2019, due to the pandemic and the resulting economic slowdown. Despite this short-term drop, the International Energy Association predicts that production will reach 104.1 million barrels per day by 2026.

Once extracted, oil must be transported to refineries and other facilities before being delivered to end-users. Most oil is moved over land by pipelines, with trucks and rail making up the difference.

Canada and the US have a combined 480,000 km (298,000 miles) of transmission pipelines spread out across the continent capable of moving large quantities of oil over long distances. Since 2008 , the two countries have added approximately 64,000 km (40,000 miles) of new pipelines. However, increasing public resistance to new oil infrastructure investments has led to the cancelation or delay of major projects, including the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

This article will compare the transportation of oil via pipeline vs. truck and rail.

Transporting Oil Through Pipelines

High Volume Over Long Distances

Pipelines are vastly superior to truck and rail transportation when it comes to moving large volumes of oil. A tanker truck can carry about 200 barrels of oil, while a fully loaded train can move 60,000 barrels.

However, these numbers are dwarfed by the capacity of pipelines. For example, the existing Keystone pipeline can move 591,000 barrels per day, while the canceled Keystone XL pipeline was intended to move an additional 830,000 barrels/day across nearly 1,200 miles from Alberta to Nebraska.

This efficiency makes transporting oil through pipelines a far more cost-effective option . It costs shippers only $5 to move a barrel of oil by pipeline, significantly lower than the $10 - $15 required to transport by train, or the $20 to ship by truck.

Safety and Environmental Impact

The environmental impacts of new pipelines and oil infrastructure projects are always a primary concern. Environmental damage during construction can have negative consequences on surrounding ecosystems, while spills or other incidents can irreparably harm wildlife. It is generally agreed that pipelines are a safe and effective method to transport oil, though leaks and spills still occur. The Government of Canada states that 99.999 percent of oil transported through federally regulated pipelines moves safely and that only small amounts are spilled and not recovered.

However, a separate study comparing Canadian oil spills from 2011 to 2018 found that pipelines spilled a total of 3,470,000 gallons of oil compared to 734,000 gallons for rail.

These numbers are somewhat skewed by the fact that pipelines move much greater volumes of oil, so to get a direct comparison, another study looked at spills per million tons of oil moved per mile. It found trucking was the worst offender, spilling 326 barrels, followed by pipelines at 269 barrels, and rail at 83 barrels.

In the US, major oil pipeline spills such as the 2013 spill in North Dakota, the 2010 spill in Michigan, and the 2017 spill in South Dakota all released hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil and cost tens or hundreds of millions in clean up, recovery, and fines. Further, the remote nature of these pipelines means spills often happen away from roads and infrastructure, complicating efforts for clean-up and recovery crews.

Jobs and Economic Impact

Pipeline infrastructure projects can have a positive economic impact both locally and nationally. Transporting oil for export allows countries to access higher prices on world markets, while high-paying jobs are created to build, manage, and operate the pipeline.

It is estimated that pipeline operation and construction contributed $46.9 billion to the US GDP from 2015 – 2016. Similarly, the Alberta government estimated that the Keystone XL pipeline would have contributed $2.4 billion to Canada’s GDP if completed.

However, any conversation regarding job creation must consider that most construction jobs are temporary. A US State Department report concluded that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would require 10,400 workers for 4 to 8 month periods. This is the equivalent of about 3,900 full-time, full-year positions. Once finished, the pipeline would only require about 35 full-time permanent and 15 temporary positions, a negligible amount when viewed through the lens of the entire labor force.

Transporting Oil by Truck and Rail

Existing Infrastructure and Minimal Investment

Rail is the next best option for moving large quantities of oil. In the US, rail transportation peaked at around 10 percent of American crude production with nearly 1 million barrels a day moved between 2010 and 2014. For comparison, pipelines moved nearly 9.3 million barrels per day in 2014.

The main benefit of rail is that the infrastructure already exists and requires little upfront investment. Consider the construction costs of a new pipeline. According to Oil & Gas Journal , it cost an estimated $6.57 million to build a single mile of pipeline in 2017. This can vary significantly depending on the diameter of the pipe, the type of oil being transported, and the local terrain and landscape. Construction projects take years and are often further stalled by permitting and regulatory processes, political and social resistance, and environmental impact assessments.

Because oil must be transported once it is taken out of the ground, companies have been willing to pay the higher costs to ship by train as pipelines reach capacity and new projects are delayed or canceled.

Flexibility and Speed

In addition to providing an alternative when pipelines are unavailable, rail can be the best option when companies need flexibility and speed. Pipelines are fixed, meaning they can only transport oil from one location to another that is directly on the route. They are also surprisingly slow. It takes 40 days for oil to travel from North Dakota to the Gulf Coast via pipelines. The same trip takes only five to seven days by train.

Shipping by rail also gives companies more flexibility to respond to changes in supply and demand. Pipelines typically require long-term commitments to ensure access, and companies must pay for reserved capacity regardless of how much they actually use. Rail, on the other hand, generally allows for greater control and shorter contracts, meaning transporters can adjust their shipments in response to the market.

Safety and Environmental Impact

As mentioned, rail contributes to oil spills and other environmental damage. Increased reliance on rail has also led to concerns over C02 emissions. Pipelines do emit some greenhouse gases from leaks and the fuel burned at compressor stations, but diesel-powered trains emit about 70 percent more greenhouse gases than pipelines. In response, both Canada and the US have introduced new standards to accelerate investment in fuel-efficient locomotives.

Looking at safety, trains loaded with oil can become extremely dangerous in the case of emergency or derailment. Unlike pipelines, trains often travel through densely populated cities and towns, increasing the risk of severe accidents with life-threatening consequences.

This risk was highlighted in 2013 when an unattended runaway train carrying more than 2 million gallons of oil jumped the tracks at over 65 mph in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The train burst into flames and exploded, resulting in the deaths of 47 people and the destruction of most of the downtown core.

How to Best Transport Oil Remains a Crucial Question Going Forward

Each method of transporting oil has advantages and disadvantages. Pipelines are highly efficient and cost-effective once constructed but require significant upfront investments in time and money. Rail, on the other hand, provides readily available infrastructure and greater flexibility over how, when, and where oil can be moved. Trucks remain essential for last-mile delivery to fuel stations and other facilities that are not connected to other networks.

The question of how to best move oil from the production facility to refineries and on to end-users remains. And, for the time being, oil is a vital natural resource for both Canada and the US, and both countries will continue to invest in new ways to ensure it reaches domestic and international markets in a timely, safe, and cost-effective manner.

To Lockdown or Not?

Thu, 04 May 2023 18:39:46 GMT

A Look at Whether Lockdowns Really Helped or Hindered during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

A Few Perspectives Worth Considering

A year and a half has passed since the first cases of Covid-19 were reported in Wuhan, and, still, questions remain unanswered. With more than 120 million confirmed cases and two million deaths reported world-wide, the ongoing process of immunization is revealing deep-seated inequalities on a global scale, and issues surrounding public healthcare are centre of attention. While the preventive measures set by different governments varied based on their demographics, political regimes and economic power, it is safe to say that most countries around the world were faced with some of the most severe restrictions in recent history.

In January 2020, a government-ordered lockdown was first used in Wuhan as a measure against the spread of Covid. At that point, the rest of the world was calling Covid the Chinese virus, debating whether or not the government of the PRC reacted in time and/or used their power over the nation’s media to cover up data. No one could have imagined how little time it would take for the virus to reach their own doorstep. By April 2020, nearly 4 billion people were under some form of lockdown.

The “new normal”, the global reality of staying at home, working in sweatpants, and sharing meals or coffee over Zoom has become part of this new culture and a time not to be forgotten.

The pandemic has affected all aspects of life - from global events and stock markets, music and tourism industries, to daily routines and collective vocabularies . As countries from the Western hemisphere are deciding whether or not to lift restrictions or go into second or third lockdowns (or stay locked down), others are back to “normal” operation, raising some important questions regarding lockdowns.

Why Lockdowns Aren’t Working: Public Health and Social Inequality

In these extraordinary circumstances, people have agreed to some strict restrictions, however, the urgency with which lockdowns were introduced in many places during the past year failed to take into account some essential human rights implicit in the freedom of movement.

The World Health Organization defines health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, and yet the ongoing health crisis seems to have put a focus on absence of disease, while our mental and social well-being has been put on hold.

The strictest curfews and 24-hour lockdowns imposed from April 2020 threatened the very existence of people facing poverty, unemployment and homelessness in “normal” circumstances. Refugees, persons living on the streets and those dependent on welfare and public kitchens around the world were nearly forgotten in the first weeks of the health crisis. For many, the right to freedom of movement is what guarantees access to water, food and shelter on a daily basis.

According to WHO reports, there are around 281 million international migrants across the globe today, 26 million of whom are refugees. Nearly 80 million people were forced into displacement in 2020 alone, while 168 countries closed their borders during the first wave of the pandemic last April. A survey which included 30,000 migrants from 170 countries showed that most of them felt their access to health care, safety and information had further been limited due to Covid19-related restrictions, especially total lockdowns and border closing. Those who were living on the streets or informal housing had limited access to food and shelter, and were faced with xenophobia and racial discrimination, while the living conditions within refugee camps were far from the proposed health and safety standards (due to over-crowding, shared facilities, limited supplies, etc.) In some instances, homeless people and refugees were even fined for disobeying curfews .

On the other hand, as countries’ healthcare systems went into a state of emergency , many of their regular services became inaccessible to the public. Treatments of many congenital and chronic diseases, prevention and public health services were all set aside as “non-urgent” in order to ensure the safety of both patients and healthcare workers. Hospitals all over the world deferred non-Covid patients and switched to remote patient care, but they also reported a huge decrease in appointments which some professionals believe will lead to a new health crisis in the future.

Even though it seems health has never been a more widely covered and talked about topic in all forms of media, the outbreak of Covid19 has become a priority in both public discussions and government policies and strategies. The demand for information has never been higher, yet the amount of data, statistics and different forms of advice have been detrimental to a lot of people’s mental health.

Why Lockdowns Aren’t Working: Mental Health, Relationships and the Infodemic

The suspense and stress of facing a global pandemic combined with anxiety, lack of contact and movement, financial insecurity, prospects of unemployment and daily doses of infection and mortality rates have all taken a toll on many people’s mental and emotional health. The impact varied greatly depending on factors such as gender, race, economic status, age, etc. but a general surge in mental health issues has been recorded during the past year. Surveys conducted in the United States , China and the United Kingdom show that 30-40% of people felt some form of mental distress, depression and/or anxiety related to the lockdowns. In terms of coping mechanisms, 22% of the US participants reported they had started drinking more alcohol, and 14% stated they had been using marijuana more often. A European study showed how the effects of being under lockdown were particularly difficult for adults with autism.

Some studies have also shown how lockdowns widened the gender gap in terms of mental health, while the topic of gender-based violence became a burning issue as people were forced to spend all their time indoors. Victims of domestic violence were at an increased risk as governments propagated that staying home was the “safest option” for everyone. Several countries around Europe set up hotlines and code words such as Mask19 to help women facing domestic violence during self-isolation measures.

A separate Covid-specific issue concerning mental health and stress is the growing infodemic , which has brought about anxiety in many people without a history of neuroses. Daily updates on death rates, statistics and word-of-mouth reports, and an increase in the amount of misinformation and conspiracy theories surrounding the origins of the pandemic have put a majority of the world’s population on edge. Special focus is being put now on infodemic management, transparency, and many populist politicians have been reprimanded for spreading falsehoods and either spreading panic or not taking the circumstances seriously enough.

Why Lockdowns Aren’t Working: Global Economy

Many countries are still facing vaccination inequity , but several European countries are looking forward to lifting some of the Covid restrictions thanks to the immunization process. Issues related to unemployment, global trading and stock market values and education are some of the most common reasons for going back to “normal”. Travel agencies, the hospitality industry and small businesses have suffered great financial losses, which is putting a lot of pressure on government budgets.

In 2020, the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 Index has dropped 14.3%, which is its worst performance since the economic crisis in 2008. Unemployment rates have increased in 2020 in most countries, with the largest increases in developed countries - the unemployment rate went from 3.7% in 2019 to 8.9% in 2020 in the United States, and from 5.7% to 9.7% in Canada. According to the International Monetary Fund, the global economy shrunk by 4.4% in 2020. The term Great Lockdown was used in an IMF article explaining how the pandemic created an economic crisis, the likes of which the world hasn’t witnessed since the Great Depression.

Why Lockdowns Work

It is crucial to note that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as social distancing, curfews and lockdowns are the only measures of fighting epidemics of respiratory diseases that are available when there are no vaccines or antiviral medications. Faced with an unknown virus, most countries were forced to act quickly and make difficult decisions in order to save lives, and both the most authoritarian and the most liberal governments adopted the lockdown as most effective measure of prevention.

Densely populated countries in East Asia, such as China, South Korea and Taiwan were among the first to report cases of the novel coronavirus, and the first to issue lockdown restrictions and close their borders. In China, an organized system of tracking and dealing with the country’s health crisis was soon established, and citizens got used to regular temperature checks, lockdowns and curfews. Within a few weeks China had included a health code property on Wechat and Alipay, the most widely used apps in the country, to be used in public transport - similar to the Covid passport concept some Western countries are debating today.

Asia-Pacific countries were the first to successfully lift lockdown measures and get their economies back on track. European countries such as France, Spain and Italy, whose healthcare systems almost collapsed during the first wave of the pandemic, are still debating loosening measures, even after an entire year has passed, while Asian countries are able to control new cases with far less draconian measures. On average, Asia-Pacific countries were most successful in response to the pandemic . Some argue their success in handling the health crisis is due to a collective focus on public well-being rather than individual liberties and economic interests. That being said, European countries were very successful in handling the first wave of the pandemic once they started implementing the health and safety regulations.

The example of Sweden, which has come to be known as the Swedish enigma , is an outlier in the global statistical overview. The Public Health Agency of Sweden is the only one to adopt a kind of laissez-faire approach to the pandemic, relying on the population’s sense of personal responsibility and herd-immunity. It was only in late 2020 that the Swedish government started issuing recommendations related to social distancing and wearing masks in public. There is, however, no evidence that proves the unusual approach of this country was any better in terms of cumulative cases and death rates compared to the rest of the world.

What evidence, thus far, does show is that countries in North and South America were the worst affected globally , especially those in which the ruling parties were led by populist politicians who promoted anti-Covid myths and non-scientific advice.

In general, the Covid pandemic has definitely had a profound influence on our society and way of life. Social distancing and various forms of lockdowns were, as far as we know, necessary measures which had to be taken in order to save lives, but they also impacted different members of society to different extents. Some issues concerning public health and social inequality have become more apparent and talked about, while some are yet to be fully understood.

We are confident a critical reader will consider all of the information and resources provided with an open mind and a sense of responsibility this moment in time undoubtedly deserves.

Carbon Tax

Thu, 04 May 2023 18:34:29 GMT

Carbon - To Tax or Not To Tax

This article will seek to provide an overview of opinions in support of and in opposition to carbon taxation in Canada and other countries. The possible positive and negative aspects of these taxes are worth considering if one is to assess their role in climate change.

In 1990, Finland became the first country in the world to impose a carbon tax, followed by Poland that same year. Fifteen European countries have followed suit since then, with Sweden imposing the highest tax at €108.81 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, or CO2, or its equivalent and Switzerland coming in second at €90.53 per metric ton. In 2019, the World Bank reported that 25 countries had implemented carbon tax regimes or were scheduled to do so. Some of the biggest carbon polluters in the world, including the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia, have yet to impose carbon taxes.

*A ‘carbon tax’ refers to a fee imposed on businesses and individuals that functions as a type of ‘pollution tax,’ the main purpose of which is to decrease the levels of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and, thus, climate change.

Pros of Carbon Taxation

A Scientific Imperative

Though there continues to be a small but vocal contingent of climate change deniers, particularly in the United States , the majority consensus is clear: climate change is real, and getting worse. That was the finding of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) , which declared in April 2021 that all climate change-related factors and indicators worsened in 2020. This included increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, as well as higher land and ocean temperatures, increased sea level rise, and more evidence of melting ice and glacier retreats. Extreme weather events were also up. The 2020 data for CO2, nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) are proof of the upward trend of all three major greenhouse gases since 1985.

Within that context, to date carbon taxes have been successful to some degree: Sweden ’s introduction of a mild carbon tax in 1991 led to a significant portion of the country switching from fossil fuel energy use to more sustainable biomass, and emissions falling by 26%. In Canada , British Columbia saw its net emissions fall by 4.7% over eight years after introducing a carbon tax; on the contrary, Saskatchewan, a province with no carbon tax, saw its greenhouse gases rise from 1990 to 2015.

A Socio-Economic Imperative

It is telling what grounds the Supreme Court of Canada used to uphold the Canadian government’s bold carbon tax system , which seeks to cut emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030 and have net zero emissions by 2050. The Court upheld the validity of the 2018 Greenhouse Gas Pricing Act in accordance with section 91 of Canada’s Constitution Act of 1867, known as its “peace, order and good government” or ‘POGG’ clause. Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote that “Parliament has jurisdiction to enact this law as a matter of national concern.”

There are economic considerations too. The 2019 National Climate Assessment , a 1,515-page scientific report produced by 13 U.S. federal agencies, stated that climate change will cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede its economic growth if measures are not taken. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (FRBSF), the rationale for carbon taxes is simple: without them, industries and consumers have no incentive to curb their emissions. The Climate Leadership Council believes a carbon tax is the most cost-effective and ‘speedy’ mechanism available to reduce carbon emissions.

The Quintessential Pigovian Tax

Carbon taxes are a quintessential example of a Pigovian (or Pigouvian) tax where duty is imposed on an entity or individual for their adverse impacts on society, in this case, the environment. These costs are too often treated as environmental externalities by traditional economic theory and accounting practices. A benefit of tax, therefore, is that it apportions responsibility for carbon-based pollution, based on an established ‘polluter pays’ principle; it ensures that adverse impacts are properly accounted for.

Furthermore, carbon taxes are simple to administer , according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

180: The Other Side of Carbon Taxation

High Costs to GDP

Possibly, the most pervasive argument against carbon taxes is that of their high cost, including at the macro-economic level. In Canada, the Fraser Institute contends that carbon taxes have many negative impacts, including a 1.8% decline in Canada’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), at an average of $1,540 per employed Canadian, as well as a net loss of approximately 184,000 jobs. Furthermore, the Institute argues that the Canadian government will not be able to honour its pledge to refund household carbon tax payments without going into deficit at about $22 billion annually.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) has also been a fierce critic of the country’s recently-introduced carbon tax regime. The non-profit federation, Canada’s largest organization for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) with over 95,000 members, believes that it will be small businesses that bear the brunt of carbon taxes long term. Detractors also point to the failed Australian carbon tax experiment, which lasted just two years (2012-14) and was also criticized for its negative impact on small businesses, particularly in the retail sector.

High Costs for Working People

“A burden on the backs of hard-working people” was Doug Ford’s response to the 2021 hike in federal carbon tax. The Ontario premier’s reaction is typical of most opponents of carbon taxation: it’s simply too expensive and working- and middle-class people will be hardest hit. In the U.S., Republican Representatives Steve Scalise and David B. McKinley introduced an anti-carbon tax resolution in May 2021 that declares such taxation would be detrimental to the American economy and most harmful to working-class Americans.

A 2014 Stanford University study found that a hypothetical carbon tax would result in double the costs for lowest-income households when compared to the wealthiest 10% of households. The study argued that the poorest households tend to spend a greater percentage of their income on fuel for heating and transportation, while richer households spend more on services, which have a lower carbon emission rate per unit of output.

Feasibility Issues

A further reason offered by critics of carbon taxation is that it simply isn’t feasible. The graph below compiled by the IMF shows that even a carbon tax at a relatively high $70 per ton would not be enough for many countries to meet their 2015 Paris Agreement commitments or ‘pledges’. In fact, some of the biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries would still fall short of their Paris pledges, including Australia, Canada, France, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Even a carbon tax as high as $170 per ton by 2030 of CO2 or its equivalent, as per Canada’s current progressive carbon tax regime, would only result in a 26% reduction in emissions, well below its Paris target. A carbon tax as high as $243 per ton would be needed to get Canada’s 2030 emissions down to the commitment it made in Paris.

Another question to ponder is how governments are choosing to spend carbon tax dollars? Are countries working towards new energy technologies with those funds? Or do carbon taxes get dumped into the general coffers?

New Brunswick received sharp criticism after it was revealed in March 2021 that the province had spent only $25.9 million of the $36 million in its climate fund. Also, much of the provincial climate fund has been spent on investing in small nuclear reactors as a ‘clean energy’ alternative, which would take years to reap emissions benefits. Part of the debate in the United States regarding carbon taxes has been how said taxes would be distributed, with much of the emphasis being on dividends to U.S. citizens and corporate tax rebates, rather than on direct reinvestment into renewable energy.

On the other hand, some countries are very clear about how their carbon tax revenues are spent. Ireland released a 7-page breakdown of its carbon tax allocations as part of its Budget 2021, most of which would be for more renewable energy and sustainable agriculture initiatives. Sweden does not generally ‘earmark’ tax revenues as part of its national budget; however, all carbon taxes are reported to have been reinvested in emissions-abating initiatives.

Whether or not carbon taxes can make a real difference is open to debate - but it’s an urgent debate nevertheless.

Screen Time and Health

Thu, 04 May 2023 18:31:33 GMT

A Glance at Screen Time and it's Effect on Health

The line between our digital reality and the real world has never been so blurred.

Screen time, online tools and social media have been essential to our education, social and mental well-being and general access to information on many fronts, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though our smart devices have become central to day-to-day living, can something good become something unhealthy? Where does the threshold of screen-time excess fall?

How much screen time is too much? Does it matter which kind of online or digital content children spend their time consuming?

What will be the long-term consequences of the previous year on our mental and physical health?

How much is too much? Then and now

A short 15 years ago, researchers and newspaper articles were focused on the time children spent in front of the television , and expressed concerns regarding the average two hours per day spent watching TV, and the additional hour on their school computers. The 2006 poll conducted by the British Dietetic Association, expressed concerns that a sedentary lifestyle would lead to a rise in obesity among children. They estimated that by 2020, one in five boys and one in three girls in the UK would be classified as obese. Research from 2020 does, in fact, show that obesity has become prevalent in children: NHS data for the school year 2019/2020 demonstrated that 23.6% of boys in the sixth grade were categorized as obese, and 18.4% of girls.

By 2009 , two to three hours of screen time in 2006 had risen to around six hours per day. A survey by the Childwise Research Agency showed that children in Britain were spending 2.7 hours a day in front of the TV, 1.5 hours online and 1.3 hours playing video games. An issue which they put a special focus on was the fact that fewer and fewer children and young adults were spending their time reading books. Around 2010 , we already see the term addiction being used to talk about the time children spend on their computers, and many newspapers and websites started providing tips for parents to prevent and/or recognize screen addiction. Experts were suggesting to limit the time children spent in front of TV and computer screens to one or two hours per day. At that time, most children were just starting to use cellular phones, and the devices’ internet access was limited. It wasn’t until 2012 that smartphones became a thing – and changed the access to being online forever. According to global statistics on web use, there were over 5.19 billion mobile phone users around the world in 2020, with more than 4.54 billion people using the internet on a daily basis, and averaging an astonishing 6 hours and 43 minutes online each day.

A recent publication by UCL Press entitled “The Global Smartphone” shone light on how our relationship to the portable smart device has changed based on anthropological research conducted in various countries around the globe over a period of 16 months. In an interview for the “Guardian”, prof. Daniel Miller, who was one of the leading researchers on the project, explained “transportal home” to explain the phenomenon of humans treating their phones as places that provide refuge, connectivity with friends, family, and facilitate relationships with loved ones even if they are long-distance.

The new possibilities granted to us by technology have led to some dramatic changes in our lifestyle, two of which are mentioned in the UCL study – perpetual opportunism and the death of proximity. On the one hand, the immediate availability of content and information has changed the way we move and plan things – maps and virtual assistants have made it possible to travel on a whim while staying connected and retaining a certain level of safety. The plethora of entertainment apps which are a click away at any moment has changed the way we perceive time, as well as our expectations of content, attention spans and ideas of boredom. Rather than trying to make moments last (as was the original triumph of photography and video), we are moving towards a more transient understanding of information. On the other hand, having all of these possibilities immediately on hand has brought about the death of proximity, a phenomenon best illustrated by the fact that most of us no longer have meals, conversations and breaks during which our phones are disconnected or turned off. The digital realm has, in a sense, brought us closer to those who are thousands of miles away, while at the same time distancing us from those sitting next to us.

Detriments of too much screen time

Most of the original arguments against allowing children to spend too much time in front of computers, television screens, and phones and/or tablets concerned predicted effects on their physical health, eyesight, posture, lack of physical exercise and potential for obesity. As our virtual lives became more and more intertwined with “real” life, the issues surrounding mental health became more prominent in public discussion. Questions of the effects of social media and online content on depression, anxiety and sense of self-worth, as well as different topics related to mental health such as sleep deprivation are being raised by both the media and professionals in the fields of social sciences and pediatric medicine.

One of the most recent topics to arise within this discussion of over 15 years is the effect of social media on children’s security and well-being. Facebook has recently announced they are developing an Instagram for kids , which has raised a few eyebrows among lawyers and child safety experts, as well as concerned parents and members of the public.

Easy access to online can leave underage users prone to digital violence, cyber-bullying and even sexual grooming. Some studies also connect social media with unrealistic expectations of both one’s physical appearance (leading to eating disorders, body-shaming, etc.) and success in life, social anxiety ( FOMO ), depression and even suicidal tendencies . The amount of insight the companies have into their users’ mental health became evident when Facebook’s algorithm started recognizing symptoms of manic stages in persons with bipolar disorder. While this could arguably be used to help treatment, it is important to note that some (or most) of the information we post on social media is also used to help advertisers reach their target audience. Today, it is not only about amount of time spent on a screen, but digital literacy: How do we teach children how to recognize and protect themselves against harmful content and potential cyber threats?

In terms of children’s psychophysical well-being, some of the old arguments still apply today – a 2018 overview provided a list of the main risks connected with excessive use of digital technology, which included lack of attention, delays in language development and social development, physical inactivity and obesity, poor sleep quality, social issues and anxiety, low creativity, and aggressive behaviors. Other issues include negative effects on growth and posture, as well as a wide array of health risks connected with prolonged sitting , such as high blood-pressure, risk of diabetes, high BMI, and even risks of some forms of cancer. There are many resources concerned with negative effects of screen time on eyesight .

What are the benefits of screen time?

In light of current events, many benefits of online tools and electronic devices have become very apparent. Social media, and especially apps such as Zoom, Whatsapp, Wechat, etc. have made it possible to stay connected with friends and family during extended periods of isolation. Conference calls and digital platforms have also made online lessons and working from home more convenient.

A UNICEF report shows 1 in 3 children are regular internet users, most frequently accessed through their phones. The authors of the report state that in the modern world, more attention should be paid to the ways in which children use digital tools and devices, rather than the amount of time they spend using them. Most of the children involved in the survey reported they used their phones to play games, stay in touch with friends, and do schoolwork, but many of them also use creative apps for enhancing their learning process. ESL learners benefit greatly from all forms of online content, as most of it (including games, articles, cartoons, and pop music) is in English. Some of the participants also reported they used social media and chatting apps to keep up with school work, read news and share educational videos which help them understand lessons. Teenagers even said they had their own blogs, and used the internet to share opinions and information on current events. For some of them, the digital world provides a safe space to communicate with peers about sensitive topics, come to terms with their identity and find their voice.

In general, there are quite a few ways in which digital tools and electronic devices can benefit children’s development. Many tools and apps have educational value, promote curiosity and help enrich children’s learning experiences. There are many video games which include elements of storytelling, interactive learning as well as improve motor skills and hand-eye coordination. Minecraft is a great example of a non-violent game which has been linked with promoting creativity and skills like problem-solving, logic and teamwork.

Social media and chatting apps help children stay in touch with their friends and make communication easier for those kids who are shy or have difficulties socializing with their peers. On the other hand, the current circumstances have extended this aspect of connectivity to family members, relatives living in different places around the world, as well as teachers, mentors and counselors. Being online has made it possible for most children to maintain a somewhat normal daily routine in times when even most adults were faced with great amounts of stress, anxiety and depression.

To sum up, these uncertain times have seen an upsurge in screen time in both adults and children, and for this reason it is important to consider some of the long-term consequences. There are many reasons why we should think about limiting and overseeing the time children spend in front of different devices, but it is also important to accept the fact that while we are living in the digital era, children are born in it. UNICEF’s guidelines provide a few useful recommendations regarding screen time during the pandemic, most of which focus on balancing online and offline activities and being open with children about both the risks and the opportunities of the virtual world

Pharmacare in Canada

Thu, 04 May 2023 14:43:47 GMT

Who Would Benefit From Pharmacare and What are the Risks?

Many countries around the world are facing rising health care costs that are partially attributable to the increasing price of pharmaceuticals. Particularly, high-cost drugs for the treatment of oncology make up a substantial portion of those growing expenditures. Increased pressure on healthcare budgets is motivating many countries to try and find solutions to create more affordable healthcare systems, including considering cost containment measures for pharmaceuticals.

In Canada, the federal government is currently developing plans to implement a national Pharmacare program. Canada is the only country in the OECD with a partially funded health system that excludes prescription medicines. Currently, Canada ranks the 4th highest for pharmaceutical prices out of the 31 countries of the OECD, with Canadians spending 43 percent more per capita for their medicine. Although a very popular program, with just under 90 percent of Canadians in support of a single-payer, publicly funded Pharmacare system, there has been some pushback from the pharmaceutical industry and some interest groups.

Arguments for Pharmacare

More Cheaper and Accessible Medicines

One major benefit of a national pharmaceutical procurement program such as Pharmacare is the ability to reduce the market prices of medicines by increasing the bargaining power of the purchaser. Through economies of scale, the purchaser has the leverage to negotiate better prices which could not be achieved through multiple smaller business contracts.

There are many examples to support the claim that countries with single buyer programs have lower pharmaceutical market prices. Per capita in 2015 , Norway spent half as much on pharmaceuticals as Canada. The U.K spent a third less, while Australia spent twenty percent less. One study based on the savings acquired in New Zealand’s single buyer system suggested a potential savings of 21 to 79 percent on prices of pharmaceuticals if Canada adopted similar policies.

Aside from making medicines cheaper to purchase, a Pharmacare program would also standardize the cost and availability of medicines across provinces and territories. Today, each province and territory have separate public plans making the availability, price, and coverage of different medicines vary. Implementing national Pharmacare would consist of constructing a national formulary or list of drugs that are covered and available across the whole country, ensuring that Canadians have equitable access to medicines regardless of where they live.

An Affordable Healthcare System

Another argument for the benefit of implementing Pharmacare is that universal coverage for pharmaceuticals makes the overall health system cheaper. In addition to decreasing prices of medications, Pharmacare mitigates pressure on the health system that results from cost-related prescription non-adherence as well as increased administrative costs from a fragmented health system.

When patients do not have access to their prescribed medicines, their health can suffer. This results in additional costs to the overall health system through increased visits to the doctor’s office and emergency departments. One study in Canada determined that the effect of getting rid of out-of-pocket costs for medicines for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory disease would save the health system $1.2 billion a year , with savings found from 220,000 fewer emergency room visits and 90,000 fewer hospitalizations.

It is also argued that national Pharmacare would reduce economic inefficiencies attributed to having many separate, unintegrated coverage plans. One study on the American system suggested administrative costs for their fragmented health system are double those in Canada – 31 percent versus 16 percent respectively. The study suggested that if the American system was streamlined to the Canadian single-payer system (excluding pharmaceuticals), there would be enough savings to be able to fund health insurance for all Americans. In Canada, the total annual savings that are expected from extending the single purchaser model to medicines is estimated to save the health system $5 billion per year by 2027.

Increased Health Equity

This argument suggests that Pharmacare is necessary to create equitable access to healthcare. Those who argue this point suggest no one should be denied access to prescription drugs necessary for people’s health due to cost. In Canada’s health system where prescription medicine is not universally covered, individuals tend to have to rely on limited federal or provincial programs, employment benefits (given they are offered), or resort to paying out-of-pocket costs. The result of this system is those with lower economic status, as well as those with health conditions, are overburdened with those costs, creating health inequities across the population.

In Canada, one in ten Canadians report not being able to take their prescribed medications because of cost-related barriers. Under the current system, twenty percent of Canadians do not have insurance coverage or have inadequate coverage to afford their medicines. One study found that 35.6 percent of people with no insurance and low household income reported prescription non-adherence. Notably, even medium and high-income individuals with drug insurance coverage still have issues related to drug nonadherence due to cost, at about 3.6 percent.

One report estimated that the lack of access to prescription drugs in Canada is causing 370 to 640 deaths from heart disease every year, and 270 to 420 deaths of those with diabetes. Not being able to afford medicines also has consequences that extend beyond an individual’s health. One study reported around a million Canadians had to sacrifice paying for food, heating bills, and other medical necessities to afford their prescriptions. It is argued that these hardships and deaths are preventable under a national Pharmacare system which would ensure access to all Canadians.

Arguments Against Pharmacare

Reducing the Number of Available Medicines

This argument suggests that Pharmacare may put access to new and existing medicines at risk. Some argue a national program would end up replacing private coverage plans which offer much more expansive coverage, thus reducing access to some medicines. Some also suggest that companies would be less likely to introduce medicines to a market if their expected profits are lower.

There is some evidence to suggest when federal programs create drug formularies, they take away the choice that patients might have had between different brands of medicines available through private plans. For example, existing Canadian public plans tend to provide access to generic medications over brand name medications when available, since they are chemically identical, cheaper, and many generics are manufactured within the country.

Reduced market prices are argued to decrease the likelihood that companies would find the Canadian market attractive for their medicines, and thus put at risk access to those medicines. There is evidence that the launch of new medicines is delayed in markets with stronger price controls. One study estimated that a 25 percent reduction in price would result in a six to ten percent reduction in new medicines. However, approximately eight years later, the estimation is down to about four to six percent. One suggested reason is that drug launches prioritize entry into markets with higher expected returns.

Might Increase Drug Shortages

This argument suggests Pharmacare might increase the risk of drug shortages since it monopolizes procurement and selects only a certain variety of medicines on its formulary. Drug shortages are harmful since alternatives can produce unwanted side effects for patients, and some medications such as those for epilepsy cannot be substituted for alternatives. Some suggest Pharmacare is unable to achieve the desired balance between having a diversified number of suppliers, as well as ensuring medicines are affordable.

When one manufacturer is rewarded with a bulk contract, this creates a monopoly that may work to drive out other competitors from the market. It has been argued this can further exacerbate the problems of drug shortages by decreasing available substitutions when one drug becomes unavailable. One example is the shortage of flu vaccines that occurred in New Zealand when a single company was given the contract for their flu supply but could not deliver. This caused delays while alternative contracts were negotiated.

Research on drug shortages shows that they are almost always caused by disruptions in supply . This is most frequently due to issues within the manufacturing process, such as product quality issues. Every supplier does not necessarily have an independent chain of manufacturing from other suppliers, and there are many cases where multiple suppliers rely on the same source of raw materials. One report suggested contracts with suppliers can mitigate issues of drug shortages by ensuring they have backup vendors for their raw materials, alternative sub-contractors at all stages of manufacturing, and ensuring safety stocks.

Decreased Investment in Innovation

Some suggest that reduced revenues from lower drug prices will eat at available funds for research and development (R&D), consequently resulting in less investment in Canada and fewer innovative medications reaching the market. Worsening health outcomes due to fewer newer medicines is a projected result of underinvestment.

Many pharmaceutical companies argue that they rely on profits generated from sales in the US – where patients are paying about 2.5 percent higher than the rest of the OECD – in order to fund R&D. They argue that lowering sales in Canada would put added pressure on their R&D resources and result in less innovative medicines coming to market. It is difficult to determine how large pharmaceutical companies distribute their profits, and how exactly profits are linked (if at all) with their R&D spending since this is often hidden behind confidential business information. However, research suggests that the location where companies decide to invest in R&D is not associated with the market price of medicines, and instead is predicted by the availability as well as the quality of technical infrastructure, labour, and local taxation laws.

Pharmacare, Will it Work?

Aside from being a very popular program, there is a growing body of evidence that Pharmacare has the potential to increase the health equity of the population, relieve the burden on Canada’s struggling health system budget, and save many Canadians money. However, like any large government program, the way that it is implemented will determine its ultimate success. Critics have pointed to the potential side effects of reducing market prices through a single buyer program and national drug formulary, including the potential risk of shortages, reduced choice, and diverted investment.

As the only OECD nation with a partially funded health system, there is room for improvement, and there are many different bodies exploring the costs and benefits of covering prescription medicines for Canadians.

The Canadian Housing Market

Thu, 04 May 2023 14:34:55 GMT

Renting vs Buying a Home

Overview of the Current Housing Market

It has become more difficult to purchase a home in the last year. Mortgage rates have been on the rise all over North America as interest rates rise in an effort to combat inflation, and those with fixed-rate mortgages don’t want to give up their comparably lower rates, leading to low inventory supplies . This low inventory has also contributed to the costs of homes hitting record highs as the demand is higher than the supply.

For those looking to rent rather than buy, rent prices have also increased due to the rise in the cost of living, which is making renting almost as expensive as owning a home.

This article will compare the pros and cons of renting vs. buying a home.

Demographics & Income Levels of Homeowners vs. Renters

In the United States, 65 percent of those under 35 years old are renters. On the other end, 79.3 of those over 65 are homeowners . The average homebuyer is 47 years old, whereas the average age of renters is 38. Looking at previous trends, young adult homeownership dropped by 10 percent between 1960 to 2017, which reflects the increased shift to renting.

In terms of income, $30,000 in annual income separates renters and buyers. The median income for homeowners in the US is around $72,000, whereas, for renters, this income is around $40,000 . For renters, around 30 percent of their total income goes towards housing costs, whereas only 16 percent of homeowners’ income goes towards their costs.

Differences by Cities & Locations

Typically, urban areas have higher rates of renting due to the housing makeup in those areas. Not surprisingly, areas such as California and New York are highly occupied by renters , coming in at 45 percent and 47 percent respectively. More rural states, such as Idaho, have higher percentages of homeownership, at 72 percent. Overall, Canada and the USA are both very similar in that each country has an overall homeowner rate of 66.5 percent and 65.5 percent , respectively.

The Pros and Cons of Renting

Flexibility & Location Advantages

Two of the greatest advantages to renting are the flexibility to move freely and the increased accessibility to different locations. To start, renting allows individuals to move much more frequently and without many consequences. Typically, lease agreements are one year, which gives renters the choice to pick up and change locations or stay in a location that they enjoy. This also makes it easier for those expanding families to increase their space as needed, or, alternatively, to decrease their space to save some more money.

Renters are often at an advantage when choosing locations. Typically, in larger cities, apartments, rental condos, and townhouses are closer to downtown cores, which makes the location ideal for those who cannot afford to purchase homes in bigger cities or those who work downtown. These locations may also include many amenities , such as pools or fitness centers.

Financial Considerations

Renting has had a negative association that it’s a waste of money because you aren’t building equity as you would as an owner. However, many other financial considerations could offset this minor shortcoming. To start, there is no requirement for renters to pay maintenance costs or foot repair bills unless they’re at fault. Landlords and property owners are responsible for such costs, which is a huge advantage for renters.

Another big advantage of renting is that there are no down payments . While first and last month’s rent or a security deposit is typically required before moving in, this is usually equal to one month of rent, so it’s not as nearly as expensive as a down payment on a house.

The last major financial incentive for renting is fixed monthly costs and lower variable costs. For renters, that means that they can expect their monthly bills to be consistent every month. This is also true for utility costs , as apartments/condos are less costly to heat as they are usually designed to be more compact and efficient . Additionally, rental insurance is considerably cheaper, at an average of $179 per year – compared to homeowner insurance at $1,249 per year.

Instability, Lack of Control & Landlord Implications

One of the biggest disadvantages of renting is the instability that comes with living on someone else’s property temporarily . If the property owner wants to sell their property or doesn’t want to rent anymore, it could leave the tenant in a tough situation. The tenant also is usually confined to very specific rules and regulations which, if they don’t comply, could result in an eviction . This lack of control can include pet policies, limited decor options, quiet hours, and more. Though rentals are seen as a short-term option, many individuals end up renting for most of their lives. The lack of customizability and freedom within the rental unit can be a huge deterrent.

There is also a risk that landlords increase rent every year, which could turn a renter’s dream home into a financial nightmare. There are many regulations in countries that try to protect renters, which can include rent controls and affordable housing policies. However, not every state or province has these in place. For example, landlords in British Columbia can only increase rent by 2.9 percent per year , whereas in Texas no cap exists and renters in Austin saw an increase in rent by 40 percent. This can result in renters being forced to move as their homes become unaffordable. In the US, renter incomes only grew by 0.5 percent, while rental prices increased by 13 percent.

The Pros and Cons of Buying

Building Equity & Long-Term Investment Strategy

One of the greatest advantages of homeownership is the opportunity to build equity. Home equity is the difference between the market value of the home and how much is owed on the mortgage. Typically, equity increases as you pay down the mortgage – if the value of the home doesn’t decrease from the original price. It can take a long time to build equity, which is why homes are considered to be long-term investments . The median home price in the US increased by 16 percent between 2014 and 2020 – which increased owners’ return on investments significantly.

Owning a home is considered an investment, as the money you put into it essentially grows and gives you more money when you sell. Compared to renting, where your money is going to pay off the landlord’s expenses, a mortgage payment increases your wealth. Homes are considered to be a very safe investment as they have a high tangible asset value and almost always increase in value over the long term. Even if the home’s cost is relatively low, it gives individuals a low-risk, highly valuable investment. Though this investment could take more than a decade to produce value, it’s a great way for individuals to invest in themselves.

Greater Independence & Comfort

No doubt owning a home brings more stability, security, and comfort to individuals. Owning a single-family home, especially, means that you’re able to enjoy the privacy that you don’t necessarily get when renting. You also don’t have to follow anyone else’s rules or policies and are subjected to the noises of your neighbours .

Homeowners are also able to increase the value of their homes through home improvements , which ultimately increase the owner’s comfort. Home improvements could be as minimal as painting or as drastic as installing a deck. This flexibility and independence are unlike what you get if you were renting. Being able to make the place you live your home is an important part of comfort and owning that home makes this process easier. That said, some buildings, such as condos, place restrictions on owners around what they can do with their units and the types of renovations they can make.

High Associated Costs

High upfront costs are some of the largest roadblocks to homeownership. With homeowning, a typical down payment could cost 20 percent of the home’s cost. The average cost of a home in the US is around $410,000, which could require a 20 percent down payment of around $80,000. There are typically closing costs, which could add 2 – 5 percent of the home’s price to the cost. Using the same example as above, this could add another $8,200 – $20,500 in costs for new homeowners.

Property taxes, utilities, and other monthly costs such as insurance and homeowners’ association fees should all be considered when budgeting for a home. Average property taxes in the US can cost $3,370 per year, on top of average annual utility costs of $4,158.

Another significant cost is unexpected maintenance and repair costs. While landlords are responsible for rental properties, owners must make repairs themselves. Annual maintenance costs in the US are around $2,913, but it can ultimately depend on what work needs to be done. Roof repairs, water damage, plumbing, HVAC, and foundation issues are all common causes of maintenance and repairs . Roofs and foundation issues can cost up to $10,000 alone, which is a significant financial burden for owners. All of these costs can make homeowning inaccessible for those with minimal savings , or who don’t have a high enough income to cover these added costs.

Conclusion

There are many benefits to both renting and owning a home. One offers great flexibility and, when viewed holistically, can be more affordable for some people. On the other hand, owning a home gives individuals a greater sense of security and comfort, while also being a very safe and secure investment. Overall, which is the best choice depends on the lifestyle of the individual, their income and ability to pay, and how much they value certain aspects of home life.

Arctic Warming

Thu, 04 May 2023 14:10:34 GMT

How a Changing Arctic Environment Impacts the Rest of the World.

The Arctic is one of the world’s most important regions – yet it only encompasses 17 percent of the globe . It spans northern parts of Scandinavia, Canada, Greenland, Russia, and the state of Alaska. Typically, most of the Arctic stays frozen all year round and plays a vital role in influencing weather and climate around the world. However, as the Earth’s climate changes, the Arctic is changing more rapidly than the rest of the planet. This article will explore some of the trends being felt in the Arctic region, as well as the environmental, social, political, and economic impact of these trends.

Overview of Trends

Since the 1990s, Arctic amplification has meant that the temperature in the Arctic has increased three times the global average . The surface temperature in 2020 within the whole Arctic region was 2.2 degrees Celsius higher than the average from 1981-2010. In 1980, the annual mean surface temperature was around -1.15 degrees Celsius, whereas in 2020, it was around 2.2 degrees Celsius. The temperature is only expected to continue to rise, anywhere from 3 to 7 degrees Celsius within this century. The increased temperature that has occurred in the past 50 years has been attributed to human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels .

Environmental Impact

One of the greatest impacts of the changes occurring in the Arctic is the melting of sea ice. Sea ice is critical in maintaining Earth’s energy balance and keeps polar regions cool because it reflects more sunlight back into space. The air is also kept cool by providing an insulating barrier between the cool air and warm water. Unfortunately, the melt season is becoming longer, which means that ice is melting earlier and is freezing later than it used to. The thinning of the Arctic ice layer has begun to accelerate ocean warming and shoreline erosion in Arctic communities and has contributed to strong winds and currents.

The loss of permafrost is also a growing concern due to Arctic changes. Permafrost is soil that is perennially frozen and covers 25 percent of the land in the Northern Hemisphere. It provides much of the structural integrity in northern landscapes. As the soil warms, primarily from increased wildfires , the intricately woven materials begin to destabilize after being stable for millennia. In addition, when the ground thaws, microbes begin eating organic matter, which releases carbon dioxide and methane – two very potent greenhouse gases. This cycle is endlessly repeated as more ground thaws, and the system starts to collapse.

Species Impact

Arctic species are being put at increased risk of habitat loss, death, and even extinction. Due to the decrease in sea ice thickness and overall loss of ice, ice-dependent animals are at risk. Polar bears may be at the most risk when it comes to sea ice melting. They use the ice for a variety of reasons, including hunting and breeding. In Northern Canada, polar bears could face starvation and reproductive failure .

When ice melts during the summer, the bears must move inland and only survive on their energy reserves . When the ice forms too late or too thin, they’re unable to make dens and food becomes scarcer . Seals, which are polar bears’ main prey, need ice to raise their young and are unable to do so when the ice is disappearing. The lack of food has big effects on reproduction as females are giving birth at a lower rate and cubs are surviving to adulthood less frequently.

Many other Arctic species are facing threats, including seals, walruses, and seabirds . Seals are facing the same reproductive problems as polar bears, as are seabirds and walruses due to the lack of sea ice which they depend on to hunt. In addition, herbivores such as reindeer aren’t able to reach their food in the winter as snow is being replaced with hard ice layers caused by increased rain as opposed to snow.

Economic Impact

The melting sea ice and longer melt season have brought opportunities for shipping, mining, fishing, and tourism. The Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route could improve the connections between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, reducing overall travel time when compared to the Panama Canal and decreasing the cost of shipping .

The harbours are also extremely rich in minerals such as copper, diamonds, and lead. The thawing permafrost and erosion give access to these minerals ; however, challenges still exist. In addition, the fish stock could increase as warmer waters are more attractive for some species.

Overall, tourism will potentially benefit due to access to ports and longer seasons. That said, many of the main Arctic attractions, such as glaciers and polar bears, are facing disruption which could have a negative impact.

Despite these potential opportunities, Arctic warming, as a whole, is projected to have severe economic consequences. Lancaster University found that the Arctic warming, specifically the permafrost melting, could cost $70 trillion in long-term costs. This only represents 4 percent to 6 percent of the total economic costs of climate change. The total cost could amount to $600 trillion if warming is kept to only 1.5-2.0 degrees Celsius. If temperature goals aren’t met, the total cost could surpass $2,000 trillion .

Social Impact

Indigenous communities are facing the greatest social impact of the Arctic changes. Historically, these populations have been able to adapt to environmental change . However, the accelerating climate crisis poses new risks. Seasonal weather patterns are changing rapidly and becoming more unpredictable, including more rain and extreme heat.

This can make it very difficult to predict the weather for hunting and travel . The melting sea ice has also contributed to increased difficulty for the people who live there. It has become too thin for safe human travel, removing an essential route for marine hunters. In addition, food has become scarcer as their populations are at risk. For example, ringed seals are the most important food source for the Inuit people of Nunavut . Their population has decreased due to the melting ice, which has also reduced the polar bear population. Both these mammals are essential for survival in this Arctic community.

In addition, indirect health effects are being felt by these populations. On top of food and water security, changes in patterns of infectious diseases and increased exposure to organic pollution and heavy metals are being noted. This can affect human health and requires increased health monitoring and healthcare infrastructure. Unsafe infrastructure is also a cause for concern because homes and critical buildings are becoming dangerous due to the melting permafrost . Not only are people at risk of losing their homes, but the damage places a high financial burden on populations as they are required to repair or relocate.

Political Impact

The Arctic is home to many different countries, which have competing agendas and activities. Since 13 percent of the world’s oil and 30 percent of natural gas reserves are located in the Arctic, this creates a huge opportunity that was previously hidden beneath the ice and ground. These natural resources are the main source of political conflict when it comes to claims to Arctic land.

However, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dictates that countries can only exploit seabed resources within 370 km of their shorelines. This gives each Arctic coastal country its own “claim” to Arctic land, without encroaching on other countries’ rights. However, large parts of the Arctic Ocean remain up for grabs, with Russia and Canada both trying to take the biggest claims.

Russia, which makes up 53 percent of the Arctic coastline , has previously claimed that they “ control the Arctic ”. Russia is currently increasing its offshore drilling and exploration , which is being aided by Chinese investments. Canada, which is also a major player in Arctic land claims, has banned offshore drilling in the Arctic in collaboration with the US to focus investments in more sustainable sectors.

Overall, due to these geopolitical and economic interests, nations are increasing their military presence in their Arctic regions. Russia has been militarizing its region of the Arctic since 2007 by converting cold-war military bases and modernizing nuclear submarines, while the US has invested $40 million into their Thule Air Base located in northern Greenland due to Russia’s escalated presence. The lack of international legal protections in the Arctic creates the need for international cooperation that would prevent increasing tensions. This is essential for mitigating the risk of conflict that could result in multiregional wars .

What Does This All Mean?

The Arctic is warming due to human-based activities which have accelerated climate change. Species, communities, and the local and global environment will all suffer due to this intense and ongoing change in temperatures. Though it uncovers some hidden opportunities which could drive economic growth in countries that stake their claim, the global monetary and societal costs are significantly greater, demonstrating the importance of hitting climate change targets and reducing the impact to these incredible environments.

think-180

Is Canada Really in a Recession?

Context

Analysis

Ottawa Mayor and Lansdowne Park

Context

Analysis

Danielle Smith - Conflict of Interest

Context

Analysis

RCMP Exploiting Human Rights Loophole

Context

Analysis

New York City Airbnb Ban

Context

Analysis

Quebec Language Laws

Context

Analysis

Safe Smoking Sites

Context

Analysis

Liberal Government's Planned Changes to the Competition Act

Context

Analysis

Manitoba Healthcare

Claim

Context

Analysis

EU Digital Services Act

Context

Analysis

Sources

Ottawa Cyclists

Is Big Pharma Improving Canadian Healthcare?

Context

Analysis

Immigration and Housing

Context

Analysis

Ontario Greenbelt

Claim

Context

Analysis

Sources

Are Paper Straws Just as Bad for the Environment?

Context

Analysis

Ontario Teacher's Union

Context

Analysis

Are Climate Deaths Falling?

Context

Analysis

Sources

Is Arson to Blame for Canada's Wildfires?

Quote:

Context

Analysis

Further Reading

Bruce County Water Treatment

Context

Analysis

Ontario Launches 1.2B Home Building Incentive Fund

Context

Analysis

Canadian Governments Pushing Public Transit

Context

Analysis

Cash Incentive for Homeless Population in British Columbia

Context

Analysis

UFO Whistleblower - Alien Vehicles

Context

Analysis

Tax Cuts and the Housing Market: Ottawa

Context

Analysis

End Book Banning at Peel Public Schools

Context