Johansen.se

Oct. 16 marks World Food Day, a global initiative drawing attention to the “right to foods for a better life and a better future.” However, Canada’s food and agricultural policies are falling short of this objective.

Canada’s current agricultural policies are not serving the well-being of the public. Canada’s agricultural program payments and subsidies are not aligned with the government’s dietary guidelines and health goals.

Very few agriculture investments go to the production of fruits and vegetables, even though Canadians under-consume them. Instead, financial support overwhelmingly goes to feed crops, agricultural export crops and foods high in saturated fat. This is particularly troubling, given the rise of food and lifestyle diseases in Canada, such as diabetes, obesity, coronary heart disease and high cholesterol.

The health-care costs of diet-related diseases from not meeting the dietary guidelines are at least two per cent of all health-care costs in Canada, with some estimates putting it as high as 19 per cent. Agricultural policy is not just about food; it influences health, the economy and the environment.

Climate change and agriculture

Trying to address greenhouse gas emissions without paying attention to agriculture is like heating your home while not ensuring doors and windows are closed. Agriculture is a big contributor to Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.

As climate change intensifies, bringing more frequent and severe wildfires, droughts, floods, and heat domes , agriculture is being impacted. Instability in weather patterns threatens regional and global social stability and may require Canada to rethink the dominant role of international trade in shaping its current agricultural policies.

Read more:
How to fight climate change in agriculture while protecting jobs

Government policies that largely support input-intensive crops and animal agriculture contribute significantly to methane and nitrous oxide emissions and global warming.

Despite these concerns, Canada is not investing strategically or sufficiently in agriculture. Despite $12.5 billion dollars in annual agricultural supports, a surprising portion of Canadian farmers continue to financially struggle to survive. According to the National Farmers Union:

“Over the last three decades, the agribusiness corporations that supply fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, fuels, technologies, services, credit, and other materials and services have captured 95 per cent of all farm revenues, leaving farmers just five per cent.”

In 2016, 66 per cent of all farms in Canada were in the revenue class of $10,000 to $249,999. On average, these farms had expenses exceeding their revenue by a large margin.

While Canada spends a large share of its budget on addressing the negative outcomes of how we produce and consume food, there remain greater opportunities for investing in preventive measures that promote a healthier, more sustainable food system. Canada’s 20th century agriculture policy regime is woefully insufficient for the challenges of the 21st century.

Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Lawrence MacAulay rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, on April 18, 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Patrick Doyle

Solutions to the crisis

Transforming our food systems will help to avert devastating climate change and ecological devastation. Many Canadian farmers are already leading the way by incorporating principles of sustainability into their practices. And the good news is that healthy diets are also environmentally sustainable.

Food outlets and school cafeterias can play a role in reducing inefficiencies in the food system, like food waste, and improving sustainability by promoting healthy eating. To make this happen, schools need more resources and autonomy to counter misinformation about food and position Canadians for success by making healthy choices attractive.

Read more:
How schools and families can take climate action by learning about food systems

Many Canadians support local, bioregional food systems as an alternative to anonymous, transnational food systems. However, these local initiatives are not enough on their own to meet our health, community vitality and environmental goals.

To truly make an impact, local food movements must be part of a larger, co-ordinated effort supported by policies that align agricultural production with healthy diets.
A new approach to food policies that considers them from a holistic perspective, beyond GDP, and respects farmers while creating food systems based on the One Planet and One Health frameworks is needed.

It’s important to recognize that farmers are not only just business operators; they are our neighbours, and are integral to our communities. Supporting them with better policies and giving everyone equitable access to nourishing and sustainable foods will ensure a healthier, more resilient future for all Canadians.

Canada needs to provide stronger support for family farms practising agroecologically sound production methods. Government programs that support greater production and purchasing of grains, fruits and vegetables for direct human consumption are also needed. These initiatives would reduce Canada’s reliance on imports of these critical foods.

In addition, federal and municipal governments should strengthen and broaden Canada’s bioregional food systems while also fostering the growth of small- and medium-sized food businesses. It’s also important to reduce the political and market power of oligopolies in Canada’s food system.

A farmer harvests a soy crop in Levis, Que., on Sept. 24, 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot

A call for change

None of these changes can happen without moving beyond the current, outdated productionist model that views agriculture in isolation and relies on the belief that only global-industrial food systems can feed the world.

In fact, smaller-scale agroecological farmers operating in bioregional food systems are key. Achieving our broader societal goals means thinking of food through agriculture, human health and environmental sustainability lenses.

Canada needs a new vision of agriculture that connects health and environment goals with sustainable diets and prosperous family farming. This vision must prioritize nutritious diets, human and environmental health, and the overall well-being of society beyond profits, market share and food exports. Also it must be formed collectively by decision-makers, farmers, food processors, community groups and the public.

In Canada, governments, organizations and citizens must work together to create a food system vision for Canada, much like Food Secure Canada’s Resetting the Table process previously did.

Further collaboration among agriculture, environment and health professionals can arise from these efforts, as can be seen with Canada’s National School Food program, which is aligning local farmers and suppliers of local options to meet Canada’s Food Guide. This is also an opportunity for Canada’s Food Policy Advisory Council to gain greater influence in shaping policy.

Just as calls for health-care reform often focus on improving services, Canadians have the right to expect better outcomes from agricultural subsidies. By prioritizing economic, environmental and public health sustainability, Canada can ensure its agricultural policy is fit for its 21st-century food system. Läs mer…

I do research on racist and xenophobic speech. I am also an American citizen, and have voted from overseas since 1996 (first in the U.K., and now in Canada).

This makes me especially well-placed to explain why Donald Trump’s Truth Social post about overseas voters in late September and Republican efforts to undermine those voters are factually wrong and politically dangerous.

The current law giving Americans overseas the right to vote in federal elections is the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, a Republican president.

The federal program to help American citizens vote while living overseas is overseen by the Department of Defense — which makes sense, given that a large number of them are members of the United States military. All of this should give pause to anyone who thinks that allowing overseas citizens to vote is some sort of left-wing conspiracy.

Complex process

Nor is it an easy matter to vote from overseas. Every state has its own process for verifying citizenship after the registration and request form reaches them, and each has its own rules that voters must follow in order for their ballot to be counted.

My own state, New Jersey, is relatively simple: I can email my registration/request form, get my ballot by e-mail, and email it back. But I must also remember to mail in the paper version of my ballot or my vote won’t count.

This is easy enough for me, from Canada or previously the U.K. But it’s much more difficult for American citizens living in places that lack reliable postal services who often have to use expensive courier services to carry out their duty as citizens.

My husband’s state is New York. He is allowed to e-mail his ballot request, but he must also mail a paper version of the request. And the ballot itself comes with an elaborate set of envelope templates that require precise folding — and must arrive by a strict deadline, no matter where they’re being mailed from.

The author’s husband and son fill out their mail-in ballots.
(Jennifer Saul), Author provided (no reuse)

He’s a former graphic designer, and comfortable performing this task. But imagine trying to do so while suffering from arthritis or vision problems — especially when the home-printed version has tiny text. In short, there is nothing easy about voting from abroad.

So why use inflammatory language to pretend it’s an easy matter to generate many thousands of fraudulent overseas votes? One explanation would be to sow doubt about the election results. Anything that can introduce uncertainty and slow down the counting process can be exploited in an effort that could allow Trump and his allies to falsely declare him the winner on Nov. 5.

Trump’s campaign has made no secret about its plan to follow this path.

Language that suggests American citizens abroad are not really American also fits into a larger pattern of stoking divisions — and of drawing ever tighter boundaries around who would be counted as “real” Americans. This is a classic fascist power move, one that leads to a sharply defined “us,” who are worthy of moral consideration, as opposed to “them,” who are not.

Disenfranchising citizens abroad

Importantly, the movement against overseas voters is not just confined to a social media post. There are lawsuits in several states designed to disenfranchise American citizens abroad. These are citizens who may have gone to enormous lengths to carry out their duties by asking for and sending in election ballots, often at substantial personal expense and faced with substantial barriers.

Trump and his allies are working hard to prevent Americans abroad from exercising their most basic rights of citizenship. When Trump uses language that accuses overseas voters of fraud and foreign interference, it suggests we’re not really Americans.

There’s a major problem in doing so. As mentioned, a large segment of American citizens abroad are members of the U.S. armed forces. Efforts to disenfranchise Americans abroad are also efforts to disenfranchise the military.

An Allegheny County worker processes mail-in and absentee ballots in Pittsburgh.
(AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar)

‘Figleaf’ language

That’s why Trump’s allegation on Truth Social that Democrats “want to dilute the TRUE vote of our beautiful military” makes no sense. This is especially true given it’s coming from someone who’s attacking the very law that allows members of the military to vote from abroad, including casting ballots for him if they’re so inclined.

This is what I call a figleaf — an additional bit of speech that provides just a bit of cover for saying something else that is much less acceptable. The allegation suggests, to someone who doesn’t understand overseas voting, that Trump somehow supports the military.

Trump’s “diluting the vote” rhetoric also plays into the deeply racist Great Replacement Theory. This theory holds that Democrats and other shadowy forces (often cast as Jewish) are plotting to replace white Americans with foreigners, in part as a way to secure electoral victory.

Overseas voting might seem like a niche issue. But overseas citizens could make all the difference in a close election. The attack on overseas voting is part of a much larger pattern of destructive suggestions from Trump about who is and is not a real American. Läs mer…

The global aquaculture industry has tripled in size since the year 2000, with producers raising a mind-boggling diversity of species, from seaweeds and clams to carp, salmon and cuttlefish. Many of these creatures are undomesticated and lead complex and highly social lives in the wild.

The rapid growth in aquaculture means that billions of individual aquatic animals are now being farmed without basic information that could help ensure even minimal welfare standards. Our newly published study shows that these welfare risks are not uniform: Aquaculture is likely to have severe effects on welfare for some species, but negligible impacts on others.

Whenever humans manage animals on a large scale, welfare becomes a concern. As experts on aquatic animals and their welfare, we believe that taking proactive measures to shape the aquaculture industry’s growth will be critical for its long-term success.

A cuttlefish tackles a challenge originally designed for human children, demonstrating cephalopods’ complex cognitive processes.

Complex aquatic lives

In a wide-ranging review of the existing science, we identified seven risk factors in fish and other sea creatures that would be challenging or impractical to accommodate in captivity. They include 1) migratory behavior, 2) solitary social structures, 3) long life spans, 4) carnivorous feeding habits, 5) cannibalism, 6) living at depths of 165 feet (50 meters) or more, and 7) elaborate courtship or involved parental care.

We researched these characteristics for each of the more than 400 species currently farmed in aquaculture. Our analysis found that many species of fishes, reptiles and amphibians are likely to suffer in aquaculture because they won’t be able to engage in their natural behaviors in farmed conditions. The same is true for crustaceans such as lobsters and for cephalopods such as cuttlefish.

In contrast, aquatic plants and other invertebrates such as oysters would experience fewer differences between their life in the wild versus in a tank, pond or other aquaculture production system.

We also found that species most at risk are among the most expensive on the market but contribute the least to global production. By shifting toward species whose behaviors and life habits are more compatible with aquaculture, the industry could minimize animal welfare risk while also keeping prices down and production quantities high. In other words, protecting aquatic animal welfare is compatible with producing affordable, nutritious food.

Animal welfare in the water

Research shows that many aquatic animals are intelligent, emotional, curious, highly social and have strong preferences. Like land animals, they can suffer if their needs aren’t met.

Consider, for example, the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum), which is currently farmed in aquaculture. Bumpheads live up to 40 years and travel several kilometers each day in large foraging troops, searching for live coral. On full moons, they come together in the hundreds to spawn and engage in ritual head-bumping contests between the males, like an aquatic version of bison.

Divers observe a feeding school of bumphead (also referred to as humphead) parrotfish on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

It would be very difficult and expensive to accommodate this species’ long life span, large range, complex foraging behavior and dynamic social relationships in the highly restrictive and monotonous environments of aquaculture.

We also found examples of invertebrate animals with similarly elaborate ways of life. One example is the red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), a comparatively small crustacean that builds elaborate tunnel and chamber systems underground. Females care attentively for their tiny offspring, fanning, cleaning and feeding juveniles for up to four months after they hatch.

In contrast, plant species farmed in aquaculture, such as seaweeds and water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica), are nutritious, protein-rich foods that can be raised without posing direct animal welfare concerns.

In 2021 alone, 56 species were farmed for the first time. By identifying species that may naturally adapt better to life in captivity, aquaculture producers and policymakers can steer their industry toward a more humane future.

This approach is already finding support in the U.S., where Washington and California have banned octopus farming. The states acted partly in response to research showing that octopuses are intelligent, curious, social animals that can solve problems and recognize individual people – qualities that are incompatible with being raised en masse for food.

More research is needed to understand the lives and behaviors of other sea creatures that are currently farmed or targeted for production in the future. Most of these species remain understudied and mysterious, which makes it hard to make informed decisions about whether they are suitable for farming.

Better data could contribute to aquaculture policy, while also boosting public appreciation for the diversity and intricacy of life on a planet that is 70% aquatic. Läs mer…

Bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay in Florida and Barataria Bay in Louisiana are exhaling microplastic fibers, according to our new research published in the journal PLOS One.

Tiny plastic pieces have spread all over the planet – on land, in the air and even in clouds. An estimated 170 trillion bits of microplastic are estimated to be in the oceans alone. Across the globe, research has found people and wildlife are exposed to microplastics mainly through eating and drinking, but also through breathing.

A plastic microfiber found in the exhaled breath of a bottlenose dolphin is nearly 14 times smaller than a strand of hair and can be seen only with a microscope.
Miranda Dziobak/College of Charleston, CC BY-SA

Our study found the microplastic particles exhaled by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are similar in chemical composition to those identified in human lungs. Whether dolphins are exposed to more of these pollutants than people are is not yet known.

Why it matters

In humans, inhaled microplastics can cause lung inflammation, which can lead to problems including tissue damage, excess mucus, pneumonia, bronchitis, scarring and possibly cancer. Since dolphins and humans inhale similar plastic particles, dolphins may be at risk for the same lung problems.

Research also shows plastics contain chemicals that, in humans, can affect reproduction, cardiovascular health and neurological function. Since dolphins are mammals, microplastics may well pose these health risks for them, too.

As top predators with decades-long life spans, bottlenose dolphins help scientists understand the impacts of pollutants on marine ecosystems – and the related health risks for people living near coasts. This research is important because more than 41% of the world’s human population lives within 62 miles (100 km) of a coast.

What still isn’t known

Scientists estimate the oceans contain many trillions of plastic particles, which get there through runoff, wastewater or settling from the air. Ocean waves can release these particles into the air.

The ocean releases microplastics into the air through surface froth and wave action. Once the particles are released, wind can transport them to other locations.
Steve Allen, CC BY-SA

In fact, bubble bursts caused by wave energy can release 100,000 metric tons of microplastics into the atmosphere each year. Since dolphins and other marine mammals breathe at the water’s surface, they may be especially vulnerable to exposure.

Where there are more people, there is usually more plastic. But for the tiny plastic particles floating in the air, this connection isn’t always true. Airborne microplastics are not limited to heavily populated areas; they pollute undeveloped regions, too.

Our research found microplastics in the breath of dolphins living in both urban and rural estuaries, but we don’t yet know whether there are major differences in amounts or types of plastic particles between the two habitats.

How we do our work

Breath samples for our study were collected from wild bottlenose dolphins during catch-and-release health assessments conducted in partnership with the Brookfield Zoo Chicago, Sarasota Dolphin Research Program, National Marine Mammal Foundation and Fundación Oceanogràfic.

Exhaled breath is collected from a dolphin during a wild dolphin health assessment in Barataria Bay in Louisiana.
Todd Speakman/National Marine Mammal Foundation, CC BY-SA

During these brief permitted health assessments, we held a petri dish or a customized spirometer – a device that measures lung function – above the dolphin’s blowhole to collect samples of the animals’ exhaled breath. Using a microscope in our colleague’s lab, we checked for tiny particles that looked like plastic, such as pieces with smooth surfaces, bright colors or a fibrous shape.

Since plastic melts when heated, we used a soldering needle to test whether these suspected pieces were plastic. To confirm they were indeed plastic, our colleague used a specialized method called Raman spectroscopy, which uses a laser to create a structural fingerprint that can be matched to a specific chemical.

Our study highlights how extensive plastic pollution is – and how other living things, including dolphins, are exposed. While the impacts of plastic inhalation on dolphins’ lungs are not yet known, people can help address the microplastic pollution problem by reducing plastic use and working to prevent more plastic from polluting the oceans. Läs mer…

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson have been awarded the 2024 Nobel memorial prize in economics for their influential work on how institutions shape economic development. Some would say the decision to award these scholars the Nobel was long overdue.

The paper that formed the basis of their work is one of the most cited in economics. Acemoglu and Robinson’s subsequent book, Why Nations Fail, has also been hugely influential.

These works have inspired a rich debate on the relationship between societal institutions and economic development – so in that sense, congratulations are in order. But they have also been the subject of substantial criticism. In the aftermath of the award, it is fitting to highlight the blind spots in their analysis.

The Nobel prize committee announces the memorial prize in economics for Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson.
Christine Olsson / TT / EPA

The most important piece of criticism concerns the connection between the quality of a country’s societal institutions and its level of economic development. Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson’s work divides institutions into two categories: “inclusive” and “extractive”.

Inclusive institutions – such as those that enforce property rights, protect democracy and limit corruption – foster economic development, according to the laureates. In contrast, extractive institutions, which give rise to a high concentration of power and limited political freedom, seek to concentrate resources in the hands of a small elite and thus stifle economic development.

The laureates claim the introduction of inclusive institutions has had a positive long-term effect on economic prosperity. Indeed, these institutions are today found primarily in high-income countries in the west.

A huge problem with this analysis, however, is the claim that certain institutions are a precondition for economic development.

Mushtaq Khan, a professor of economics at Soas, University of London, has analysed Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson’s work extensively. He argues that it mainly shows today’s high-income countries score higher on western-based institution indexes, and not that economic development was achieved because states first established inclusive institutions.

In fact, history is rife with examples of countries that grew rapidly without having these inclusive institutions in place as a precondition for growth. East Asian states such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan are good examples. Most recently, so too is China.

Yuen Yuen Ang’s award-winning books on China’s development process have laid out in detail how China was riddled with corruption during its growth process. In the wake of this year’s Nobel award, Ang went as far as saying that the laureates’ theory not only fails to explain growth in China, but also growth in the west. She points out that institutions in the US were smeared with corruption during the country’s development process.

Ignoring the brutality of colonialism

Nations are not wrong to pursue some of the inclusive institutions outlined in Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson’s work. But another worrying part of their analysis is that it legitimises the supremacy of western institutions – and, at worst, processes of imperialism and colonialism.

Their work has, indeed, been criticised for not paying attention to the brutality of colonialism. We need to dig a bit deeper into their methods to understand this criticism.

The laureates establish their claim by looking at long-term development in settler colonies versus non-settler colonies. In settler colonies, such as the US, Canada and Australia, Europeans established inclusive institutions. But in non-settler colonies, which include large parts of Africa and Latin America, Europeans established extractive institutions.

Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson point out that, over time, settler colonies perform better. European institutions are thus better for development, they argue.

But, considering that the process of colonisation is a central method of their paper, it’s a mystery that the laureates do not discuss the costs of colonialism more broadly.

Even in settler colonies, where inclusive institutions were eventually developed, years of violence – in many cases verging on the genocide of native populations – predated the development of such institutions. Should this not be factored into the development process?

According to this year’s laureates, Europeans settled in the poorest and most sparsely populated places, and introduced institutions that contributed to long-term prosperity.
Johan Jarnestad / Nobel Prize Outreach

After receiving the award, Acemoglu said that normative questions of colonialism didn’t concern them: “Rather than asking whether colonialism is good or bad, we note that different colonial strategies have led to different institutional patterns that have persisted over time.”

This statement might come a shock to some people – why is Acemoglu not concerned about whether colonialism is good or bad? But for those familiar with the inner workings of the economics discipline, this statement doesn’t come as a surprise.

It has, sadly, become a badge of honour in mainstream economics to analyse the world without a normative lens or value judgments. This is a broader issue with the discipline and, in part, explains why economics has become increasingly insular and distant from other social sciences.

The Nobel prize in economics, which actually wasn’t among the five original Nobel prizes, also illustrates this problem. The list of past winners is narrow in geographical and institutional scope, mainly consisting of economists based at economics faculties in a small number of elite universities in the US.

Furthermore, a recent study found the institutional and geographic concentration of awards in economics is much higher than in other academic fields. Almost all the winners of major awards have had to journey through one of the top US universities (limited to less than ten) in their career.

This year’s Nobel prize in economics is no exception. Perhaps this is why it feels like every year, the prize goes to someone who asks “how does a change in variable X affect variable Y”, rather than asking difficult questions about colonialism, imperialism or capitalism – and daring to question the supremacy of western institutions. Läs mer…

With affordability, housing and health care at the top of voters’ minds in British Columbia, they haven’t heard much about climate change with less than a week to go until the provincial election.

In fact, between B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad acknowledging that “man” is impacting the climate and the NDP’s reversal on the carbon tax, casual observers might conclude that the parties have converged on climate.

But a closer look at the platforms and policy announcements of the province’s Conservatives, New Democrats and Greens reveals fundamental differences on almost every climate-related policy.

While there is uncertainty about how much B.C.’s emissions would decline under another NDP government, they would almost certainly increase under a new Conservative one.

Climate action measures

The parties differ on the threat posed by climate change and urgency of action. The NDP and Green platforms both acknowledge the “climate crisis,” and each devotes a chapter on protecting communities from extreme weather, such as flooding, wildfires and heat domes like the one that occurred in 2021.

Read more:
How an ’atmospheric river’ drenched British Columbia and led to floods and mudslides

In contrast, the Conservatives claim climate change is not a crisis and that wildfires are a natural occurrence, without acknowledging how the blazes are amplified by climate change-driven heat and drought. The party favours adaptation technology over a “doom cult” perspective.

The three parties also present very different visions of B.C.’s economic future. Both the NDP and Greens emphasize the province’s comparative advantage in clean energy, and commit to skills training for the renewable energy and clean tech sectors.

B.C. Premier David Eby pauses while speaking during a news conference about short-term skills training grants for post-secondary students outside Douglas College in Coquitlam, B.C., in July 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

In contrast, the Conservative proposal for a “free and prosperous” B.C. does not mention climate change or clean energy, while the party’s “clean energy” announcement embraces natural gas heating and oil-powered vehicles.

The Conservatives propose to scrap “any and all carbon taxes,” which suggests both the consumer and industrial carbon taxes. Although the party indicates it would do so “regardless of what happens in Ottawa,” the current federal government would respond by imposing both federal carbon taxes, as it has in other provinces.

The NDP would repeal only the consumer tax if the federal government does. The Greens would retain both taxes and remove sectoral benchmarks below which industrial polluters don’t pay the tax.

On electricity, the NDP proposes to double renewable electricity capacity by 2050 to substitute for declining consumption of fossil fuels. The party highlights BC Hydro’s recent call for clean power, which yielded proposals for triple the capacity originally sought.

The Greens similarly propose to expand rooftop solar and other renewables. The Conservatives welcome “all power sources,” including renewables, but also natural gas plants and nuclear.

Flood waters cover highway 1 in Abbotsford, B.C., in November 2021.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward

Managing emissions

Transportation contributes the largest share of B.C.’s emissions at 35 per cent. The Conservatives would repeal the zero-emissions vehicle mandate and low-carbon fuel standard. The other two parties would retain those policies, and both commit to expanding electric vehicle charging networks.

Oil and gas accounts for the next largest share of B.C.’s emissions at 20 per cent. The NDP election platform commits to implement a cap on oil and gas emissions. In addition, the NDP government announced in 2023 that future liquid natural gas (LNG) approvals will be conditional on net-zero operations within the province.

The Conservative Party seeks to double LNG capacity, without mention of either an oil-and-gas cap or net-zero commitment. For their part, the Greens would reject all future LNG development, ban fracking and manage a decline of gas production.

Buildings contribute another 15 per cent of provincial emissions. The NDP government has published documents that propose provincewide adoption of a zero-emission standard for new buildings and high-efficiency heating equipment standards that would significantly reduce gas consumption in existing buildings.

The NDP and Greens both promise financial support for rooftop solar, home retrofits and heat pumps. In contrast, the Conservatives argue, without evidence, that the grid cannot support heat pumps and promise to repeal the voluntary zero-carbon building code and a “ban” on natural gas heating.

Damaged structures are seen in Lytton, B.C. after a wildfire destroyed most of the village on June 30, 2021.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

B.C. has been a climate laggard

B.C. has been slow to act on climate. That will make it very challenging to meet our 2030 emissions target.

But progress will only be made by strengthening climate policies, something both the NDP and Greens commit to do.

In contrast, the Conservatives promise to repeal current climate policies and halt development of others. But with a growing population and plans for LNG expansion, B.C.’s emissions would increase rather than decline under that strategy.

As B.C. voters prepare to cast their ballots this week, they’ve got a lot to contemplate on climate. Läs mer…

For those of a certain age, Coneheads is an iconic 90s film. But for breakdancers, it seems, developing a cone-shaped head can be an occupational hazard.

According to a 2024 medical case report, a breakdancer who’d been performing for 19 years was treated for “headspin hole”, a condition also known as “breakdancer bulge” that’s unique to breakdancers. It entails a cone shaped mass developing on top of the scalp after repetitive head-spinning. Additional symptoms can include hair loss and sometimes pain around the lump.

Approximately 30% of breakdancers report hair loss and inflammation of their scalp from head-spinning. A headspin hole is caused by the body trying to protect itself. The repeated trauma from head-spinning causes the epicranial aponeurosis – a layer of connective tissue similar to a tendon, running from the back of your head to the front – to thicken along with the layer of fat under the skin on top of the head in an attempt to protect the bones of skull from injury.

The body causes a similar protective reaction to friction on the hands and feet, where callouses form to spread the pressure and protect the underlying tissues from damage. Everyday repetitive activities from holding smartphones or heavy weights through to poorly fitting shoes can result in callouses.

But a cone-shaped head isn’t the only injury to which breakdancers are prone, however. Common issues can include wrist, knee, hip, ankle, foot and elbow injuries, and moves such as the “windmill” and the “backspin” can cause bursitis – inflammation of the fluid filled sacs that protect the vertebrae of the spine. A headspin hole isn’t the worst injury you could sustain from breakdancing either. One dancer broke their neck but thankfully they were lucky enough not to have any major complications.

Read more:
How do breakdancers avoid breaking their necks?

Others, such as Ukrainian breakdancer Anna Ponomarenko, have experienced pinched nerves that have left them paralysed. Ponomarenko recovered to represent her country in the Paris 2024 Olympics.

As with other sports, it’s unsurprising to hear that the use of protective equipment results in the reduction of injuries in breakdancing too.

But breakdancers aren’t the only ones to develop cone shaped heads.

Newborns

Some babies are born with a conical head after their pliable skull has been squeezed and squashed during the journey through the vaginal canal and the muscular contractions of mother’s uterus.

A misshapen head can also be caused by caput secundum, where fluid collects under the skin, above the skull bones. Usually, this condition resolves itself within a few days. Babies who’ve been delivered using a vacuum assisted cup (known as a Ventouse) – where the cup is applied to the top of the baby’s head to pull them out – can develop a similar fluid lump called a chignon.

Vacuum assisted delivery can also result in a more significant lump and bruising called a cephalohematoma, where blood vessels in the bones of the skull rupture. This is twice as common in boys than in girls and resolves within two weeks to six months.

If you’ve ever seen newborns wearing tiny hats in the first few hours of their life, then one of these conditions may be the reason.

Some children may also present with “cone-head” due to craniosynostosis, which occurs in about one in every 2,000-2,500 live births.

Newborn skulls are made up of lots of small bony plates that aren’t fused together, which enables babies’ brains to grow without restriction. Usually, once the brain reaches a slower growth pace that the bones can keep up with, the plates fuse together. In craniosynostosis, the plates fuse together too early creating differently shaped heads. Surgery can prevent brain growth restriction but is usually unnecessary if the child hasn’t been identified as having an shaped head by six months of age. Läs mer…

Ken Murphy, CEO of the British multinational supermarket chain Tesco, recently said at a conference that Tesco “could use Clubcard data to nudge customers towards healthier choices”.

So how would this work, and do we want it? Our recent study, published in the Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews, provides an answer.

Loyalty schemes have been around as far back as the 1980s, with the introduction of airlines’ frequent flyer programmes.

Advancements in loyalty schemes have been huge, with some even using gamified approaches, such as leaderboards, trophies and treasure hunts, to keep us engaged. The loyalty principle relies on a form of social exchange, namely reciprocity.

The ongoing reciprocal relationship means that we use a good or service regularly because we trust the service provider, we are satisfied with the service, and we deem the rewards we get as reasonable – be they discounts, vouchers or gifts.

In exchange, we accept that, in many cases, loyalty schemes collect data on us. Our purchasing history, often tied to our demographics, generates improvements in the delivery of the service.

If we accept this, then we continue to benefit from reward schemes, such as promotional offers or other discounts. The effectiveness depends not only on making attractive offers to us for things we are interested in purchasing, but also other discounted items that we hadn’t considered buying.

Does it work?

So is this the future? The first issue is whether we’re happy to have data collected on us. There is a trade-off between the level of personalisation we want, and the amount of data we are willing to give. Research has shown that the more personalised the schemes are, the more alarmed we are about the crossing of privacy boundaries. For example, many of us dislike tailored communication about services through the use of chatbots.

The second, related point is that loyalty scheme data is, and will continue to be, of enormous value to third-party organisations. For instance, market research can use loyalty scheme data to track consumer trends more accurately. Researchers can use the data to make inferences about health-related behaviour.

As valuable as the data from loyalty schemes is for scientific purposes, not all shoppers are happy with having their data shared in this way. In one 2023 survey conducted by Yasemin Hirst from Lancaster University and colleagues of 1,539 people, 39% said they were unwilling to share their personal data with academic institutions, while 56.9% didn’t want to share with private organisations.

What data people were willing to share also varied: for example, people were happier sharing loyalty card data (51.8%) than social media data (30.4%) for research purposes. In general, people worried about privacy as well as misuses of their data.

All of this points to data privacy and permission being needed for sharing personal data with third-party advertisers and data brokers for people shopping online.

Tesco may try to nudge us towards healthier choices.
Steve Travelguide/Shutterstock

The final aspect is what the data reveals. Data from loyalty schemes does not present a complete picture of a shopper. We mix and match where we buy our food because of our budget and our geographical location. And some retailers have greater coverage and delivery in rural areas than others – further influencing our behaviour.

This also means that our degree of loyalty provides only a partial picture of what we end up buying, and how healthy our habits are.

New research

In our recent research, Sarah Jenkins and I conducted a study to look at issues related to what Murphy had in mind. We asked 389 people to evaluate ways their grocery shopping behaviour could be influenced.

We looked at three categories. One included financial incentives and discount offers. The second was classic “nudging” methods, such as labelling healthy or green options, campaigns or education schemes.

Finally, we looked at technological incentives that could be implemented via smart phones or laptops when making online purchases. For example, there could be suggestions as to nutritional choices, or an automated system that would select only healthy food choices. Alternatively, the system could score your shopping choice according to how healthy they were.

People assessed all of these options in terms of whether they could help boost healthy and green choices. Generally, participants preferred the financial methods overall, specifically discounts on healthy food options (44.7%). They also judged taxes on unhealthy food items as effective.

Campaigns for sustainability (6.3%) and automated choices for sustainability (6.5%), such as online shopping algorithms only offering us sustainable options, were least preferred. One possible reason for this might be a lack of understanding of what sustainability actually means.

Behavioural and financial methods were judged to be slightly more ethical than technological methods, though most people found all options fairly ethical.

That said, techniques to nudge people’s behaviour in the right direction don’t always work. People like or dislike them depending on a mix of factors, including whether it seems effective, whether it is ethical and whether they actually have a desire to change their behaviour.

Future options

Across the different ways market researchers study our shopping trends, the same pattern emerges: about 25% of the time, we buy our groceries online. The precise percentage varies by country and by foodstuffs we buy, but in general the forecasts is that it will increase to about 45% in the next 5-10 years.

This will mean further innovations in loyalty schemes, designed both to attract new customers as well as maintain the current base. Retailers therefore need to be aware of the shortcomings of such approaches, including that they don’t work on people who don’t want to change their behaviour, that they only provide limited information, and that there may be a point where services are so personalised that many people become unwilling to share their data.

Some of us will continue to enjoy the benefits of these schemes, so long as we have the chance to exercise choice. Indeed, some want to have suggestions made that ease the selection of healthy or sustainable options, but others don’t. What matters is having a choice. Läs mer…

Celebrities can have huge influence and reach enormous audiences. That’s why Kamala Harris was happy to recently gain the endorsement of musician Taylor Swift.

Due to their media attention and massive fan bases, some Hollywood stars and musicians can appear more powerful than traditional politicians. And these perceptions of influence may also translate into actual impact.

Indeed, some celebrities have taken up causes, using their fame to overtly push for change (for instance, Bob Geldof and Princess Diana). Others endorse politicians, or successfully run for office themselves (for instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan).

While it may seem like celebrities who pivot to politics are able to trade on their pre-existing notoriety, few celebrities are well known beyond their fan bases and many people would expect them to lack the gravitas of world leaders.

However, results of our recent exploratory study conducted in the UK shows that at least one celebrity, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, stands out. He achieved public recognition, leadership and trust ratings as high as the most well-known politicians.

Indeed, our study found that The Rock’s recognition was on par with the Nobel prize-winning, two-term US president Barack Obama. He was also considered more trustworthy than many politicians.

In the study, we invited 251 participants to evaluate the faces of 40 seasoned politicians and celebrities to assess their leadership potential and perceived personality traits.

Only six of the faces had close to universal recognition. Former US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump, former UK prime minister Boris Johnson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson scored 90% or above. By contrast, US president Joe Biden and Russian president Vladimir Putin were each recognised by 80%.

Interestingly, The Rock was also judged to be more considerate, competent, credible, intelligent and trustworthy than most politicians.

When asked to indicate how strongly participants felt about each figure’s leadership potential, the results were surprising. Biden scored 64%, higher than Putin’s 56%, which was in turn higher than Trump and Boris Johnson who both received 42%.

But a much larger percentage, 72%, rated The Rock as a strong leader, only bettered by Obama’s score of 87%. In our statistical models, two key personality traits, competency and credibility, predicted The Rock’s perceived potential as a national leader.

The Rock’s fame, stemming from his wrestling career persona, television presence, and Hollywood stardom, seem to demonstrate the impact of a well-maintained media image. His expertise in wrestling’s “kayfabe” style of performance (a dramatic wrestling style that is presented as genuine) has greatly boosted his public persona as an authentic “nice guy”.

This early experience, and a strong screen presence, is likely to have contributed to leadership scores similar to Obama. Here it seems that The Rock’s heavily cultivated media personality has translated into perceptions of effective leadership.

This idea connects with the theory of mediated authenticity , which suggests that positive perceptions arise when audiences view media figures in a favourable light. The Rock’s wrestling persona has allowed him to build a connection to his fans and he seems to have developed this further with his Hollywood roles.

What can Trump and Harris learn?

Politicians must also connect with the public. Boris Johnson, for example, did well in the 2019 UK election because he knew how to connect and leveraged this ability to his advantage.

However, leaders also need to be seen as knowledgeable and trustworthy to make an enduring positive difference.

The Rock was asked about political ambitions.

Some theorists of power argue that social influence derives from being well-liked, not just being famous. Of course, The Rock is famous for his nice guy image, along with his movie catalogue and perpetually perfect physique. His perceived leadership potential could come from being both popular and seen as a good role model.

The Rock’s potential has been spotted by political parties. He describes himself as an independent and back in 2023 he revealed that he had been approached by multiple political parties about possibly running for office.

Can you be a ‘nice’ populist?

The last few years has seen the rise of numerous political leaders around the world, who have been labelled with the term “populist”. Leading figures on this list include Trump, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi, former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and Boris Johnson. However, these leaders tend not to be highly trusted.

The erosion of trust in politicians and political systems is a significant issue that can lead to decreased engagement with the democratic process, regardless of political level. This ultimately results in a civic structure that fails to represent the people it is meant to serve.

With the US presidential election just weeks away, and still virtually tied, political strategists for both of the major parties must confront a key question: how much trust does each candidate have from the public?

Like it or not, The Rock’s wrestling persona relied on building a genuine connection with fans through his kayfabe-style performance, and his friendly image. The careful cultivation of this has given him enduring popularity and, as an unintended consequence of that performance, leadership appeal on the national stage.

When you are perceived as being a genuinely nice leader, our early research suggests, trust will follow. Something that more politicians clearly need to understand. Läs mer…