Category: Uncategorized

This week, the Canadian media dutifully reported the content of a Carleton University report “Quantifying the net impact of hybrid work on greenhouse gas emissions associated with workplace and residential energy consumption” by Farzam Sepanta, Melina Sirati, and William O’Brien. The authors’ claim that civil servant remote work lowers emissions by 25% for the National Capital Region (NCR) and 64% in Quebec. The conclusions and claims are wrong.

In the report we find that an NCR civil servant who works 5 days per week in the office will produce 6.2 tonnes of CO2-e per year while that same civil servant will only produce 4.6 tonnes under a completely remote work policy – a savings of about 1.6 tonnes. In Quebec, we see a reduction of 1.3 tonnes, taking us from nearly 2 tonnes to 0.7 tonnes (the differences between the NCR and the hydro-electric building heating used in Quebec). Using survey data from civil servants, the authors carefully account for home emissions, transportation, and electricity usage. I don’t disagree with any of their calculations, their survey methods, or their results. The problem is, they didn’t finish their analysis. When we look at policy around climate change, we have to account for all the emissions that result from that policy prescription. We cannot look at only half the policy picture, and that is precisely what the authors have done.

In addition to reducing direct emissions from work related travel, civil servants who work remotely also save money. They no longer have work-travel expenses such bus passes, parking, gas, or even dress clothes. In some cases, remote work reduces child care costs. If we take an annual Ottawa bus pass with other minor incidentals as the baseline, the lower bound on savings for civil servants who no longer have to travel to work is about $2,000 per year after tax. My guess is the average savings across the survey group in the study is higher than $2,000, but let’s start there. If civil servants work from home permanently, then that extra $2,000 shifts their income up on a permanent basis. The permanent income hypothesis tells us that most of that $2,000 will be consumed, not saved (which is especially true for civil servants since they already have a pension). Civil servants tend to be solidly middle to upper middle class, which suggests that the $2,000 will have spending patterns associated with that income group. Flying produces about 2 kg CO2-e/dollar, driving about 1.7 kg CO2-e/dollar, and electronics about 0.2 kg CO2-e/dollar. If the civil servant uses the $2,000 for an extra trip to Europe, that choice creates about 1.6 tonnes from the flight alone plus extra from local transportation. The $2,000 that made the trip to Europe possible completely erases the remote work emission gains and more. Of course not all civil servants will take a trip to Europe every year with the savings, but they will spend it on something. If it’s a road trip or using the money to help support a mortgage on a recreational property, again, most if not all of the the emission gains are lost. My guess is that the spending will produce less emissions than the remote work reductions, but that $2,000 will likely produce a significant amount of emissions. Even if it’s at the level of just consumer electronics, that still represents 400kg of emissions – undermining the authors’ reported savings by at least 25%. Civil servant spending diminishes the authors’ results further if the monetary savings are greater than $2,000, which seems entirely plausible.

That consumers spend monetary savings on carbon producing activities from climate mitigation and increased efficiency is a well-known phenomenon called the rebound effect. Norwegian researchers estimate that rebound spending eliminates about half of policy-implied emission reductions. If the Norwegian observation holds with Canadian civil servants, the authors’ conclusions are wrong by a factor of 2. The closest the authors come to acknowledging rebound is with their comment:

“… telework can be a sustainable alternative to traditional work models as long as all stakeholders consciously and voluntarily contribute to adopting sustainable behaviors and to making conscious sustainable decisions associated with different domains and aspects of their lives that can impact the emissions and the 2050 net zero goals.”

That statement does not absolve the researchers from estimating civil servant rebound effects, even if only crudely. Sure, if civil servants become ascetic monks perhaps we could make the argument that we don’t need to worry about rebound, but I live in Ottawa and I know how civil servants consume (hint, they’re just like everyone else). Statistics Canada has a wealth of data on consumer spending by income groups and Treasury Board Secretariat publishes the salaries of all civil servant classifications. Using those data sources together, the authors could have at least placed bounds on emissions from the new spending made available from teleworking.

If climate change policy is to matter, we have to be honest. We cannot tell each other half truths. In the end, the atmosphere doesn’t care where the carbon comes from. Rebound effects matter. The Carleton report and an uncritical media reminds me of Richard Feynman’s comment on the Challenger disaster:

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

I find it appalling how deep antisemitism – full on Jew-hatred – runs in Canada. The Left uses it as a mark of sophistication. Yesterday the CBC ran a story by Avneet Dhillon, “Why does Scotiabank have a $500M stake in an Israeli weapons maker?” in which the national broadcaster signals its deeply antisemitic colours while masquerading as a producer of investigative journalism.

In this hit piece, the CBC implicitly suggests that the IDF intentionally, or at least recklessly, targets civilians, including children playing on a beach, made possible in part by Scotiabank mutual funds which hold positions in the military technology company, Elbit Systems. The CBC implies that ordinary Canadian investors, duped by war-profiteers at Scotiabank, feed a heartless military machine run by evil Jews. More than that, the CBC video takes a shot at financier David Feingold, menacingly labelled as “a prolific investor in Israeli funds and Israeli companies”, for managing investments at Scotiabank and directing capital to Elbit. We are not far from fomenting the usual conspiracies about how Jews control all the money, power, and influence around the world. This disgusting video goes on to explains how much the IDF depends on Elbit and by extension how much hoodwinked Canadians are funding “the siege of Gaza”.

Let’s get some facts straight. Israel and the IDF do not try to kill civilians. More than any other country involved in conflict, Israel works as hard as possible to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and collateral damage. The terrorist group Hamas (or as the CBC prefers, militants), on the other hand, does everything it can to ensure maximum suffering of the civilians in both Gaza and Israel. They feel no shame hiding weapons and command posts under hospitals or other civilian infrastructure. This conflict could end tomorrow if Hamas simply surrendered. Of course the IDF will make mistakes, just like every other country involved in conflict, including Canada. If Elbit Systems and other Israeli defence contractors could not find any investment capital, the IDF could not function. Without a functioning IDF, as 1948, 1967, and 1973 taught us, Israel would be destroyed.

The CBC frames this video as investigative journalism, informing the public about the unique evils of Israel and the nefarious financial schemes of international Jewry. But that narrative is a shameful lie – it’s boilerplate antisemitism. No other country, even those much more careless in conflict, is held to Israel’s standard. The famous physicist of Jewish ancestry, Steven Weinberg, an avowed atheist, in 2007 withdrew from a planned visit to Imperial College in London due to widespread anti-Israel and antisemitic boycotts taken by UK universities and other institutions. He had this to say:

“I know that some will say that these boycotts are directed only against Israel, rather than generally against Jews. But given the history of the attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicated a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than antisemitism.”

It saddens me to see how deep antisemitism runs in Canada’s leftist “progressive” circles, how it seeps through our supposed national broadcaster. I am strong supporter of free speech. I want antisemites to say what they think – that way I know who you are. But do it on your own dime. The sooner we can defund the CBC the better.

As a kid growing up I never understood the Holocaust. I didn’t understand how anyone could hate a group of people so much that they would want to annihilate them. Attending a Catholic elementary school, I remember thinking “Hey, wait, wasn’t Jesus a Jew? So why do people hate Jews again…?” Nazi Germany’s evils seemed so complete to me that just the sight of the spine of the jacket cover of William Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in our family library instantaneously filled me with disgust. (The book is a must read – it gives a ringside seat to the emergence of humanity’s most heinous ideology.) Throughout my life I thought, or preferred to think, that hard-kristallnacht-antisemitism was a thing of the past, harboured only in strange and powerless corners. But I did listen closely to my Jewish colleagues in physics and mathematics who warned, in quiet conversation, that hatred of Jews lurks under the surface in well-to-do, mostly “progressive” society. Without Israel, at least as the last point of refuge, Jews will always be in jeopardy.

In the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel last month, here in Ottawa I have seen those warnings from my colleagues play out in full. I find it incredible that massive groups of people took to the streets in our capital city chanting antisemitic slogans – a scene repeated around the world. Instead of steadfast opposition to Hamas and everything it stands for, trendy progressives truck with terrorists who call for the literal extermination of Jews. In just three weeks, antisemitism has become a new way to show your “nuance” and signal your “sophistication”. It’s disgusting.

The leadership in Gaza has had nearly two decades to start building a Singapore of the Middle East. Instead, they spent and continue to spend resources on rockets, tunnels, and antisemitic indoctrination. Instead of setting the conditions for prosperity, tolerance, and peace – with a world and an Israel who wants them to succeed – Gaza leadership doubles down on hatred, propaganda, and war. Even if we accept that Hamas hoodwinked Palestinians in the 2006 election, where are all the mass uprisings to overthrow Hamas today? The truth is, Hamas has a deep core of support in Gaza, even if mostly passive. Of course the Israeli Defense Force wants to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. But given Hamas tactics and their terrorist aims, Israel’s self defence will lead to unavoidable deaths in crossfire. The world needs to point the finger squarely at Hamas for Palestinian suffering.

Years ago, a New York Jewish community leader asked Thomas Sowell, “What can Jews themselves do in order to minimize the hostility they face?” Sowell responded, “Fail. Because as long as you succeed you are going to be hated.” Jews have so often risen from the bottom, in conditions of grinding poverty and rank discrimination, and yet passed so many other groups in achievement. In that regard, almost all people fail to grasp the staggering loss from the Holocaust. Sure, the inhumanity and industrial cruelness represents a singular blot on the human race, but more than that, the Nazis destroyed the Jewish intellectual and cultural conditions of central and eastern Europe that just produced Einstein, Szilard, Bohr, Ulam, Born, Meitner, Wigner, Pauli, von Neumann, Haber, Hausdorff, Tarski, Erdös, and Noether, and with it, one of the roots of our modern technological age. These men and women were my heroes in young adulthood. Fortunately for the Allies, Jewish refugees and American Jewish physicists played an outsized role on the Manhattan Project. To humanity’s benefit, the Jewish intellectual tradition survives – look at the lists of Nobel Laureates, Field Medallists, Oscars, and virtually any creative discipline on Earth since WWII. Never in history has such a small group of people contributed so much, despite the millennia of hostility.

To all those “progressives” on my street: The world needs Israel; Hamas we can do without.

Now that the convoy protest has largely ended and my street is clear of vehicles, I am filled with a confusing mix of sadness, relief, and disappointment.

This protest has centered almost exclusively on the Covid vaccine mandates. The media and some politicians have ascribed all kinds of other goals to the protesters, including overthrowing the government, but over the three weeks in my conversations with the protesters, reading hundreds of signs on their trucks and their handheld placards, nothing suggested a goal other than the end of the vaccine mandates. I am sure some people in the protest had zany demands, apparently even some of the higher profile figures, but I didn’t meet any myself. This protest was grassroots. No manifesto bound them; their opposition to the mandates forged their solidarity.

Polite society spilled a lot of ink (flipped bits?) telling Canadians that an unruly seditious mob inhabited my street and that nothing short of invoking the most extraordinary powers in the country could contain it. They told us the convoy represented an unprecedented threat to our nation. Whatever polite society has become, they are not students of Canadian history and it would serve us all well if we better understood the origins of modern Canada. What happened this month in Ottawa echoes two major disruptions from Canadian history: The Winnipeg General Strike, and the On-to-Ottawa Trek. While the parallels only go so far, they are worth exploring. Both involved working class people and both had a profound influence on the shape of our society.

In 1919, veterans returning from the front and working class people suffered from high unemployment and poor working conditions across Canada. Many workers demanded collective bargaining rights and better wages. The spring of 1919 saw Canada’s third largest city, Winnipeg, erupt into a full scale general strike triggered by failed labour negotiations in the metal and building trades. Virtually the entire city stopped working with 30,000 workers taking to the streets. As the strike continued to build, acting Minister of Justice Arthur Meighen and the Minister of Labour Gideon Robertson travelled to Winnipeg in an attempt to learn the facts on the ground. Both men refused to meet with the Strike Committee, and instead issued inflammatory statements portraying the strike as “a cloak for something far deeper—an effort to overturn the proper authority”, and “the motive behind this strike undoubtedly was the overthrow of Constitutional Government”. The conflict lasted six weeks, reaching its climax with violence on Bloody Saturday (June 21, 1919) in which government forces fired into the crowd. Strike leaders were brought up on seditious conspiracy charges, others were blacklisted, and some were even deported as foreign agitators. While the strike failed to achieve its immediate goals, it had a lasting influence on the labour movement in Canada. Some the strike leaders went on to form the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, the progenitor of Canada’s New Democratic Party. Today, we celebrate the Winnipeg strikers and their “seditious” leaders in the Canadian Museum of Human Rights.

During the height of the Depression, the Canadian government built a system of nationwide camps to provide work for single unemployed and often homeless men. Suffering under poor working conditions and low wages, resentment boiled over in 1935 when over a thousand men from camps in British Columbia went on strike and started the On-to-Ottawa Trek in the hopes of confronting the government. Hopping the rails – even commandeering freight trains – while adding to their ranks as they went, the men made it as far as Regina where they halted for initial negotiations. With the strikers moored at the Regina Exhibition Grounds, eight leaders continued on to Ottawa for further negotiations with Prime Minister Bennett. Nothing came of the talks, which quickly broke down, and upon the return of the strike leaders to Regina, Bennett decided to arrest them, even as the Trekkers were dispersing. A riot ensued and two people were killed. The ugliness of the incidence led in part to Bennett’s decline and a recognition that our approach to the Depression needed better efforts. Today, the location of the Regina Riot is a National Historic Site.

While these incidents from Canadian history have some similarities and stark differences from the events in Ottawa over the last three weeks, they share the common root of marginalization. The vaccine mandates cut people off from their livelihoods and prevent them from full participation in society, putting them on the fringes and making them desperate. These tactics have limited public health benefits – even UN vaccination initiatives in the developing world avoid them. If vaccinating the last 10% of Canada is of such paramount importance, culturally sensitive outreach is the only way to proceed with a recognition that no matter what we do, there will always be vaccine refusals. Insults and mandates not only fail to achieve public health goals, but they serve to divide us and erode trust.

A popular trope in the media today is “being on the right side of history”. If being on the right side of history was so easy, we wouldn’t have witnessed the near 40-year parade of Canadian prime ministers apologizing for historical state action which was propelled at the time by popular support. Reflecting on our history, I would not be surprised if the men and women on my street these last three weeks eventually end up in the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. History is not obvious as it’s being made.

On Saturday I watched from my living room as the convoy slowly collected themselves for departure, piling leftover supplies for donation at the local church, and all of them moving with a deliberate intent that suggested a quiet resignation to the fate that awaits them. As the last truck exited from view with a low winter sun hanging over an empty Kent Street, I felt the whisper of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,

“To stand up for truth is nothing. For truth, you must sit in jail.”

I live in downtown Ottawa, right in the middle of the trucker convoy protest. They are literally camped out below my bedroom window. My new neighbours moved in on Friday and they seem determined to stay. I have read a lot about what my new neighbours are supposedly like, mostly from reporters and columnists who write from distant vantage points somewhere in the media heartland of Canada. Apparently the people who inhabit the patch of asphalt next to my bedroom are white supremacists, racists, hatemongers, pseudo-Trumpian grifters, and even QAnon-style nutters. I have a perfect view down Kent Street – the absolute ground zero of the convoy. In the morning, I see some protesters emerge from their trucks to stretch their legs, but mostly throughout the day they remain in their cabs honking their horns. At night I see small groups huddled in quiet conversations in their new found companionship. There is no honking at night. What I haven’t noticed, not even once, are reporters from any of Canada’s news agencies walking among the trucks to find out who these people are. So last night, I decided to do just that – I introduced myself to my new neighbours.

At 10pm I started my walk along – and in – Kent Street. I felt nervous. Would these people shout at me? My clothes, my demeanour, even the way I walk screamed that I’m an outsider. All the trucks were aglow in the late evening mist, idling to maintain warmth, but all with ominously dark interiors. Standing in the middle of the convoy, I felt completely alone as though these giant monsters weren’t piloted by people but were instead autonomous transformer robots from some science fiction universe that had gone into recharging mode for the night. As I moved along I started to notice smatterings of people grouped together between the cabs sharing cigarettes or enjoying light laughs. I kept quiet and moved on. Nearby, I spotted a heavy duty pickup truck, and seeing the silhouette of a person in the driver’s seat, I waved. A young man, probably in his mid 20s, rolled down the window, said hello and I introduced myself. His girlfriend was reclined against the passenger side door with a pillow to prop her up as she watched a movie on her phone. I could easily tell it’s been an uncomfortable few nights. I asked how they felt and I told them I lived across the street. Immediate surprise washed over the young man’s face. He said, “You must hate us. But no one honks past 6pm!” That’s true. As someone who lives right on top of the convoy, there is no noise at night. I said, “No, I don’t hate anyone, but I wanted to find out about you.” The two were from Sudbury Ontario, having arrived on Friday with the bulk of the truckers. I ask what they hoped to achieve, and what they wanted. The young woman in the passenger seat moved forward, excited to share. They said that they didn’t want a country that forced people to get medical treatments such as vaccines. There was no hint of conspiracy theories in their conversation with me, not a hint of racist overtones or hateful demagoguery. I didn’t ask them if they had taken the vaccine, but they were adamant that they were not anti-vaxers.

The next man I ran into was standing in front of the big trucks at the head of the intersection. Past middle age and slightly rotund, he had a face that suggests a lifetime of working outdoors. I introduced myself and he told me he was from Cochrane, Ontario. He also proudly pointed out that he was the block captain who helped maintain order. I thought, oh no, he might be the one person keeping a lid on things; is it all that precarious? I delicately asked how hard his job was to keep the peace but I quickly learned that’s not really what he did. He organized the garbage collection among the cabs, put together snow removal crews to shovel the sidewalks and clear the snow that accumulates on the road. He even has a salting crew for the sidewalks. He proudly bellowed in an irrepressible laugh “We’re taking care of the roads and sidewalks better than the city.” I waved goodbye and continued to the next block.

My next encounter was with a man dressed in dark blue shop-floor coveralls. A wiry man of upper middle age, he seemed taciturn and stood a bit separated from the small crowd that formed behind his cab for a late night smoke. He hailed from the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia. He owned his own rig, but he only drove truck occasionally, his main job being a self-employed heavy duty mechanic. He closed his shop to drive to Ottawa, because he said, “I don’t want my new granddaughter to live in a country that would strip the livelihood from someone for not getting vaccinated.” He introduced me to the group beside us. A younger crowd, I can remember their bearded faces, from Athabasca, Alberta, and Swift Current Saskatchewan. The weather had warmed, and it began to rain slightly, but they too were excited to tell me why they came to Ottawa. They felt that they needed to stand up to a government that doesn’t understand what their lives are like. To be honest, I don’t know what their lives are like either – a group of young men who work outside all day with tools that they don’t even own. Vaccine mandates are a bridge too far for them. But again, not a hint of anti-vax conspiracy theories or deranged ideology.

I made my way back through the trucks, my next stop leading me to a man of East Indian descent in conversation with a young man from Sylvan Lake, Alberta. They told me how they were following the news of O’Toole’s departure from the Conservative leadership and that they didn’t like how in government so much power has pooled into so few hands.

The rain began to get harder; I moved quickly through the intersection to the next block. This time I waved at a driver in one of the big rigs. Through the rain it was hard to see him, but he introduced himself, an older man, he had driven up from New Brunswick to lend his support. Just behind him some young men from Gaspésie, Quebec introduced themselves to me in their best English. At that time people started to notice me – this man from Ottawa who lives across the street – just having honest conversations with the convoy. Many felt a deep sense of abuse by a powerful government and that no one thinks they matter.

Behind the crowd from Gaspésie sat a stretch van, the kind you often see associated with industrial cleaners. I could see the shadow of a man leaning out from the back as he placed a small charcoal BBQ on the sidewalk next to his vehicle. He introduced himself and told me he was from one of the reservations on Manitoulin Island. Here I was in conversation with an Indigenous man who was fiercely proud to be part of the convoy. He showed me his medicine wheel and he pointed to its colours, red, black, white, and yellow. He said there is a message of healing in there for all the human races, that we can come together because we are all human. He said, “If you ever find yourself on Manitoulin Island, come to my reserve, I would love to show you my community.” I realized that I was witnessing something profound; I don’t know how to fully express it.

As the night wore on and the rain turned to snow, those conversations repeated themselves. The man from Newfoundland with his bullmastiff, a young couple from British Columbia, the group from Winnipeg that together form what they call “Manitoba Corner ” all of them with similar stories. At Manitoba Corner a boisterous heavily tattooed man spoke to me from the cab of his dually pickup truck – a man who had a look that would have fit right in on the set of some motorcycle movie – pointed out that there are no symbols of hate in the convoy. He said, “Yes there was some clown with a Nazi flag on the weekend, and we don’t know where he’s from, but I’ll tell you what, if we see anyone with a Nazi flag or a Confederate flag, we’ll kick his fucking teeth in. No one’s a Nazi here.” Manitoba Corner all gave a shout out to that.

As I finally made my way back home, after talking to dozens of truckers into the night, I realized I met someone from every province except PEI. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians. These are the people that Canada relies on to build its infrastructure, deliver its goods, and fill the ranks of its military in times of war. The overwhelming concern they have is that the vaccine mandates are creating an untouchable class of Canadians. They didn’t make high-falutin arguments from Plato’s Republic, Locke’s treatises, or Bagehot’s interpretation of Westminster parliamentary systems. Instead, they see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; and they said enough. Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob. They are our moral conscience reminding us – with every blow of their horns – what we should have never forgotten: We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.