Why Ottawa's plan to ramp up construction might not bring down soaring home prices

Social Sharing

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

Promising new supply oversimplifies a complex affordability crisis, experts say

Nick Boisvert · CBC News · Posted: May 01, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: May 1

Framers work on a house under construction in Airdrie, Alta. on Friday, Jan. 28, 2022. Ottawa says Canada must add 3.5 million new homes over the next 10 years to fight rising prices. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

The federal government's enormous bet on new construction is unlikely to have much of an effect on soaring home prices, some economists and housing experts are warning.

The strategy to massively ramp up construction of new homes across Canada is the centrepiece of the Liberal government's updated housing strategy, which itself was the focus of the 2022 budget.

The spending plan sets aside $4 billion to create a Housing Accelerator Fund, a program still in development meant to help municipal governments speed up new housing projects.

• Are you having a hard time cracking into the housing market? Tell us about your experience by sending an email to ask@cbc.ca.

Ottawa says that fund will contribute to building the 3.5 million new homes it argues Canada needs over the next 10 years.

"The solution to housing affordability is housing supply," Housing Minister Ahmed Hussen told the House of Commons earlier this week.

But some observers say that approach is based on misinterpreted data and the tendency of politicians to oversimplify complex problems.

No evidence that more homes means lower prices: expert

"[The government] seems to have bought into the proposition that any supply is good, and if we flood the market with supply that will bring down prices," said Steve Pomeroy, a researcher at the Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative at McMaster University.

"I don't think there's any evidence that will actually happen," said Pomeroy, who has described the undersupply argument as a "myth."

Christine Whitehead, an emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, said the identification of undersupply as a cause for high prices has been "absolutely consistent" among governments across the world.

'The honest answer to the affordability crisis is much more tied up in macroeconomics,' said Christine Whitehead, emeritus professor of housing economics at the London School of Economics. (The UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence)

Whitehead — who said she has studied the economics of housing for "many decades" — said a narrow focus on speeding up new construction makes for an appealing political pitch but rarely makes a dent in prices.

"Most normal people would think that a lot more housing would make things better," she told CBC News.

"Just building 100,000 homes a year or 200,000 homes a year is not going to make that much difference, of itself, to house prices."

• ANALYSIS
  Why even falling prices won't make housing affordable any time soon

• PRICED OUT
  More Canadians than ever can't afford to buy a home. But is owning always better than renting?

Pierre Poilievre has made housing affordability a central theme of his Conservative leadership campaign. He also has identified a lack of supply as the prime culprit driving up prices.

The NDP has been calling for new housing construction, with the caveat that newly built homes should be earmarked for low-income families.

How many homes does Canada need?

The federal government, opposition parties and numerous economists have in recent years argued that Canada doesn't have enough homes for its population.

A 2021 paper by Scotiabank reported that Canada has the fewest homes per 1,000 residents of any G7 nation, something the bank described as a "structural housing shortage."

The 2022 budget includes a similar analysis which shows that Canada is below the OECD average for homes per 1,000 residents — behind France, Japan and Germany, but ahead of Australia and New Zealand.

Pomeroy said statistics like those don't adequately support the government's undersupply argument since other important factors are left out — such as the fact that Canada has the second-largest average household size in the G7.

He said Canada's recent pace of new housing starts has kept up with population growth — even as home prices have been hitting new record highs.

• Average Canadian house price hits $816,720 — up 20% in past year

"When you look at the data, it doesn't support this idea that we have a lack of supply, certainly at a national aggregate level," Pomeroy said.

Canada added more than 271,000 new homes in 2021, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation data.

Housing and Diversity and Inclusion Minister Ahmed Hussen has said repeatedly that a lack of supply is behind Canada's housing affordability crisis. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

Robert Kavcic, a senior economist with the Bank of Montreal, also has questioned the government's ability to stimulate more construction.

"The challenge here is that we are already seeing a record number of units under construction, and the sector is pushing against labour and capacity constraints as it is," he wrote in a response to the budget.

Kavcic also noted that if the government succeeds in accelerating new construction, it could backfire by driving up material costs and aggravating inflation, pushing housing prices higher.

Ottawa says other factors contributing to high prices

In an email to CBC News, a spokesperson for Hussen added nuance to the government's argument that undersupply has driven up prices.

"There are a number of factors that are making housing more expensive, but the biggest issue is supply," wrote Daniele Medlej. 

"However, we recognize that there are other elements at play, which is why we are putting in place multiple measures to curb unfair practices in the housing market, including banning foreign homebuyers, introducing an anti-flipping tax and banning blind bidding."

• New tax-free home savings account, foreign buyer ban top budget plan to tackle housing affordability

Whitehead said government efforts to boost new supply and change regulations are dwarfed by the forces of macroeconomics, such as income levels and interest rates.

Short of instituting politically toxic measures such as capital gains or inheritance taxes, she said, the Canadian government will have little direct control over prices.

"I wish I could be more cheerful about it," Whitehead said. "What I am saying is that there's no harm in building houses. You should still go on building the houses and try to allocate them to people in need."

It’s time for Ottawa to call the oil industry’s bluff

By Max Fawcett | Opinion | May 2nd 2022

NATIONAL OBSERVER

Cenovus president and CEO Alex Pourbaix, left, addresses the company's 

annual meeting in Calgary on April 25, 2018. 

Photo by the Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh

Even in an industry where competent communicators are about as rare as Liberals in downtown Calgary, Cenovus Energy CEO Alex Pourbaix’s comments stood out. After announcing a $1.6-billion profit in the first quarter of 2022 — one that allowed his company to triple its dividend to shareholders — he rattled his can in the direction of the federal government over its tax credit for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. “These are multibillion-dollar projects,” he told analysts on a conference call Wednesday. “We have to have certainty that they are investable, and that we can manage those investments over the entire commodity price cycle.”

Translation: Ottawa needs to make its existing CCS tax credit, which is already worth billions of dollars, even more generous. Beginning in 2022, companies like Cenovus are able to claim a credit of up to 60 per cent for direct air capture projects and 50 per cent for more conventional carbon capture technology. But Pourbaix and the other members of the Oil Sands Pathway Alliance, which includes the six major oilsands producers, apparently have their eyes on the even more generous incentives in Norway, where the government is covering as much as two-thirds of the up-front cost on a major new CCS project.

There’s a catch here, though, one that people like Pourbaix would probably rather not mention: the Norwegian government has a much bigger stake in the companies it’s subsidizing. The Longship project will sequester carbon dioxide from two potential sources (a cement factory and a waste-to-energy plant co-owned by the City of Oslo) through a pipeline and into permanent storage under the North Sea by a trio of oil companies led by Equinor. And the Norwegian people still control 67 per cent of Equinor, along with an equivalent proportion of its profits.

In Canada, on the other hand, companies like Cenovus and the rest of the oilsands players are owned entirely by private shareholders. Those shareholders are doing very well right now and stand to do even better in the future as fossil fuel companies continue to pay down debt and direct even more of their massive free cash flows to dividends and stock buybacks. Imperial Oil just posted the highest first-quarter profit in over 30 years, one that will allow it to buy back up to $2.5 billion of its own shares.

Don’t just take it from me. RBC Capital Markets estimated the four largest oilsands companies will generate $47 billion in free cash flow (that is, cash after funding its operating activities) in 2022 and 2023. That’s basically two-thirds of the total estimated cost of the transition to net-zero emissions for all of the oilsands companies — in just two years. Meanwhile, the transition itself is expected to play out over more than two decades.

So yes, they can easily afford to pay for their carbon capture and storage projects. But the disconnect between their ongoing campaign for more corporate welfare and the reality of their record profitability raises an important question: is it time for the taxpayer to get a bigger piece of the action?

A pro-oil investment firm CEO named Shubham Garg seemed to inadvertently provide an answer to that question in a recent tweet. “Canadian oil companies enjoy much higher ‘free cash flow’ during times of high commodity pricing when compared to peers in other countries,” he wrote. “Large tax pools further reduce the tax burden and make a very compelling case for investing in [Canadian] O&G.”

CEOs like Pourbaix have been making that case to investors lately, which fundamentally undermines their appeal for more government subsidies. "I suspect, over the long term, much as we've seen in other jurisdictions, we're going to require a real collaboration," he said during his recent quarterly conference call. But collaboration isn’t a one-way street, and if companies like Cenovus want more government money, they should be asked to give the government a bigger share of their success. According to recent data from Rystad, Norway’s government has received nearly $100 in revenue per barrel of oil produced so far this year. In Canada, it's less than $20.

So yes, it’s time for a real collaboration between industry and government on carbon capture technology. Maybe that takes the form of a joint venture between the Oil Sands Pathway Alliance companies and the federal government, one where the taxes paid are informed by the price of oil these companies receive. Or maybe it’s a windfall tax on their profits, one whose revenues are funnelled back into renewable energy and low-carbon solutions in Canada.

What it absolutely cannot be is the sort of blank cheque that CEOs like Pourbaix seem to be looking for right now. Their recent (and record) profits speak for themselves, and their ongoing attempts to cry poverty should fall on deaf ears. If the government's billion-dollar carrots don’t get them to move more quickly on emissions reductions, maybe it’s time for the sticks.

Most Americans Support Abortion Access. So Why Do We Think It's Controversial?

By Dr Katie Spalding

05 MAY 2022, 11:32

When news got out this week that the US Supreme Court are poised to overturn Roe v Wade – the landmark 1973 case that established the right of pregnant people in the US to have an abortion – the reaction was swift and passionate. Within hours, protests had erupted outside the Supreme Court building, with anti- and pro-abortion rights demonstrators facing off until past midnight.

For many onlookers, these scenes probably aren’t surprising: abortion has long been a cornerstone in the US culture wars. But is the choice to end an unwanted or non-viable pregnancy really as controversial as we’re told?

A recent paper, published in the journal Political Psychology, reminds us that the truth is far less black and white: “Most people in the US support abortion rights,” explained Robbie Sutton, Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Kent, UK, and co-author of the paper.

“A striking feature of the leaked Supreme Court judgement is that it deliberately and explicitly ignores public opinion,” he told IFLScience.

Now, with Roe v Wade seemingly on its last legs and more than half of US states either moving to or having already set up outright abortion bans immediately afterwards, we’ve got to ask – what gives?

MOST AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF ABORTION ACCESS – AND SUPPORT IS INCREASING

Despite the slew of anti-abortion – and notably anti-scientific – laws that have been signed into effect in various US states recently, the paper points out that the US public is firmly in the opposite camp.

In fact, they always have been. Even in 1978, just five years after Roe was passed, the General Social Survey (GSS) recorded that up to 90 percent of Americans supported access to legal abortions in certain circumstances, and one in three supported the right to get an abortion when “the woman wants it for any reason.”

And today, support for abortion rights is only stronger. The latest GSS reported that a majority of respondents now support the freedom to end a pregnancy “for any reason,” the paper notes, and surveys have consistently found around three-fifths of Americans support keeping abortion legal in all or most cases.

“The extreme position of many [anti-abortion] politicians and activists in the US tends to favour a blanket ban on all abortions. However most people are more in favour of so-called 'traumatic' abortion which is necessary to prevent loss of life for the mother, than so-called 'elective' abortion which women choose for economic, social, or personal reasons,” Sutton told IFLScience.

“However, the distinction is problematic, because very often women may confront situations in which they really cannot afford to lose a child, or may be trapped in abusive relationships, and so on – so the degree to which abortions are truly 'elective' is open to question.  For the most part, support for elective and traumatic abortions are strongly correlated – people who favour right to have one type of abortion tend to favour the right to have the other.”

This positive and nuanced picture may seem at odds with what we’re presented by politicians and media – and there are quite a few reasons why that is, former broadcast news producer Julia Moser told IFLScience.

“Especially in broadcast news, too often the emphasis is just on getting the show on the air regardless of the content of the guest’s point of view,” she explained. “So if your boss tells you to book an anti-abortion guest, and you’ve just seen a pitch for one in your inbox, most people are far more likely to just book that guest no matter how extreme their position is [rather] than taking the time to research someone with less extreme views because they simply don’t have the time or resources to find someone better.”

“And to put it bluntly, too many TV news executives would prefer a 'good talker' with extreme views to a more moderate guest with less charisma,” she added.

In the abortion debate, it’s this that separates the US from much of the rest of the world – not the frequency at which abortions are obtained or people’s views on the procedure, but how it’s presented.

“Levels of support [for abortion rights] are lower than in most other Western countries,” Sutton told IFLScience. “But what really makes America stand out is the degree to which abortion is a polarizing issue that is so prominent and formative in party politics.”

WHO REALLY OPPOSES ABORTION?

Ever since white supremacists started leveraging Evangelical Christian voters as a reaction against desegregation, support for abortion access has largely fallen around increasingly partisan lines: if you self-identify as a Republican, then chances are you oppose abortion; if you’re a Democrat, you likely support the right to choose. But past that, things can get more complex.

“Religious belief is a major predictor, especially in the Christian and Muslim traditions,” Sutton told IFLScience – though all religious groups expressed support for traumatic abortions by at least a factor of four to one. On top of that, many religious respondents, especially Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists, support abortion rights in all circumstances, the review found.

“Education also correlates with pro-choice positions,” Sutton noted, with each additional degree of education increasing the likelihood of being pro-choice by more than 150 percent. And there are a few quirks of political affiliation: “We are finding that libertarianism in the US – an avowed commitment to freedom of individual choice – does not translate to support for abortion,” he told IFLScience.

“By and large libertarians oppose abortion rights for women in the US,” Sutton said.

But when the researchers looked at perhaps the most stereotypical predicting factor – sexism – they found the picture to be more complicated than you might expect.

“Sexism has two core components: hostile sexism, which broadly equates with misogyny, and represents women as seeking through feminism and exploitation of their sexuality to usurp men's dominant position; and benevolent sexism, which represents women in positive, warm terms as worthy of adoration and protection by men, and as more moral and refined than men,” Sutton told IFLScience.

“In our work, reviewed in this paper, both types of sexism sometimes are associated with abortion attitudes, and the one that stands out, surprisingly, is benevolent sexism,” he continued. “This is consistently related to opposition to abortion.”

Perhaps surprisingly, some of the most strident anti-abortion activists may balk at the suggestion that they hate women – they revere women. “Benevolent sexists see motherhood as the ultimate expression of womanhood,” Sutton explained, adding that these are the people who will “restrict pregnant women's choices in all sorts of ways, for example by preventing them from taking exercise, having an alcoholic drink, or eating cheese.”

That’s not to say that your garden variety misogyny isn’t a big factor in opposition to abortion rights – but it tends to play out slightly differently, Sutton explained.

“Hostile sexism is more important when the reproductive autonomy of women seems to clash with men's,” he told IFLScience. “So, hostile sexists tend to think that men should be able to veto the choice of their partners to have an abortion AND not to have to pay anything towards raising a child if they would prefer that the pregnancy is terminated, but the pregnant woman decides to carry full term.”

THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN ABORTIONS

Should Roe v Wade be struck down, as seems likely, abortion will become illegal in all or most cases in more than half of the US. If history and statistics are any predictors, that could lead to an increase in abortions – no, not a typo – and pregnant people dying.

Those deaths won’t be evenly spread: “Restricting access to abortion disproportionately affects Black women in the US,” Sutton pointed out.

“White women seek fewer abortions than in earlier decades – the number of abortions has been in decline,” he told IFLScience. “This may have weakened the extent to which abortion is front and centre in the minds of some of the most powerful feminist activists.”

But more generally, researchers and politicians alike will soon find themselves grappling with an important question: how did we get to this point?

“Research … needs to examine why the anti-abortion side of the debate has been more galvanised and successful in the US,” Sutton told IFLScience.

“It must be remembered that for the most part, the US is swimming against a global tide,” he added. “In Ireland and Latin America for example policy and public opinion is moving in the opposite direction.”

So what’s different in the US?

“There’s so much pressure from the top to provide ‘balance’ [in the media], which results in shows booking guests who spread misinformation and argue in bad faith,” explained Moser, who was not involved in the study.

“On-air hosts in the US generally are ill-equipped to push back on those kinds of arguments,” she told IFLScience, “so guests are pretty much allowed to present a false picture and viewers are presented with a skewed version of reality.”

Sutton has a similar theory. “Even pro-choice, strongly liberal participants appear to have been swayed by abortion myths that downplay the benefits of access to abortion or even present it as harmful,” he told IFLScience. “We suspect that this, together with some of the perceived moral granularity of abortion […] may dilute support for abortion rights relative to the certainty and simplicity of anti-abortion standpoints.”

If Roe is overturned this June, it will be for ideological reasons, not scientific ones. Like the rise of preventable epidemics, the ever-present climate crisis, the onslaught against trans rights, and so many other issues, the fall of abortion access in the US will likely be traced back to bad-faith actors, rumors, and misinformation.

“In my experience, there’s a level of misinformation that newsrooms tolerate when it comes to abortion that simply does not fly on other issues,” Moser told IFLScience.

“Most respected newsrooms would not allow an anti-vaxxer to come on the airwaves and lie about vaccines without any pushback, but the same is not true for anti-abortion activists spreading lies,” she said. “Facing an angry, vocal minority who’ve politicized facts, advertisers are successfully pressuring newsrooms into thinking ‘balance’ is the same as truth.”

Leaked Overturning Of Roe Vs Wade Suggests Science Ignored Again

By Stephen Luntz

03 MAY 2022, 

IFLSCIENCE

Roe versus Wade – one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings in American history – is to be repealed, a leaked draft opinion obtained by Politico reveals. Debate surrounding Roe v Wade, and abortion more generally, involves questions of values and law, but is also informed by questions that have been scientifically investigated. The leaked draft gets some of this wrong

Two-thirds of Americans support Roe v Wade, a figure that has been relatively stable since it was passed in 1973, decreeing that the right to choose whether to proceed with a pregnancy fell within the Right to Privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Nevertheless, most states with Republican legislatures and governors have passed bills that contradict Roe v Wade or are in the process of doing so. The Supreme Court is ruling on the constitutionality of one from Mississippi.

Much of the division about abortion centers on the question of how we value bodily autonomy and reproductive rights versus that of a potential child to be born. Legal and constitutional questions particular to each country come into it as well.

Opponents of legalized abortion frequently make, or imply, things that can be scientifically tested in the course of their arguments. The leaked draft makes reference to the assertion Mississippi legislators have “found that at five or six weeks' gestational age an 'unborn human being's heart begins beating'”. Although the legislation in question allows abortion until week 15 of pregnancy, many states only allow six weeks under these so-called “heartbeat acts”.

Yet there is no heart – and therefore no heartbeat – detectable at this stage. Instead, a group of cells that will subsequently control heartbeat timing start sending out electrical signals at six weeks. Advances in ultrasound have allowed doctors to detect these signals, something impossible until quite recently. Few gynecologists consider this a heartbeat – it can even occur in fetuses that never go on to form a functioning heart.

It's common to claim that aborted fetuses suffer pain in the procedure, emphasized by the name of the anti-abortion propaganda film Silent Scream. Yet the overwhelming majority of abortions in America (and elsewhere) are performed during the first trimester. At this point, the fetus is a long way short of having a developed nervous system capable of registering pain.

Another question that can be tested scientifically is how those who have abortions feel about the decision afterward. Inevitably, with tens of millions having undergone procedures to terminate their pregnancies, some later think they made the wrong decision, or struggle with the stigma around the procedure. Those who go public about this get their voices amplified with an implication, or actual statement, that this is the norm – however, studies reveal five years later, 95 percent think they made the right decision

Efforts to ban abortion also usually misrepresent the risks of either having an abortion or giving birth. Births in America carry much higher risks than in any other wealthy country, with around 700 deaths a year.

Anti-abortion legislation would sometimes even prosecute in the case of miscarriage, implying a deep misunderstanding of the rate at which wanted human pregnancies fail. Between 10 and 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage in the US, although that could be up to half of all pregnancies as many miscarry before they know they are pregnant.

One draft piece of state legislation even sought to ban the termination of ectopic pregnancies. These occur when the fetus implants in a part of the body other than the womb, usually the fallopian tubes. These can never result in the birth of a living child, and without medical intervention usually lead to the death of the pregnant individual. A conversation with anyone who has studied anatomy might have cleared this up.

Finally, every argument for banning abortion carries with it the implication that such legislation will reduce the number of abortions performed. Although this makes intuitive sense, abortion rates today are similar to when it was illegal in most states. Social scientists and epidemiologists have studied the factors that influence abortion rates extensively and their conclusions are clear: Access to contraception and quality sex education is much more important than the legality of the procedure.

Bills like the one Mississippi passed don't make for many fewer abortions, but they certainly make for fewer safe ones.

Canada Looks To Prosecute Crimes Committed On The Moon




ASTRONAUT BUZZ ALDRIN WALKS ON LUNAR SURFACE NEAR THE LEG OF THE LUNAR MODULE IN JULY 1969. IMAGE CREDIT: JSC/NASA


By Tom Hale02 MAY 2022, 

Canadian astronauts, you better watch your behavior. Canada is looking to amend its criminal code to allow the prosecution of its astronauts who commit crimes on the Moon, as well as on the journey there.

The proposal was buried deep within Canada’s 2022 federal budget implementation bill, presented to the House of Commons last Thursday. In essence, any crime committed on the Moon or during space flight will be dealt with as if it had been committed in Canada. 

“A Canadian crew member who, during a space flight, commits an act or omission outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offense is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada,” reads the measure included in Bill C-19.

It goes on to explain that this includes crimes that are committed “on the surface of the Moon.”

The proposed amendment comes after Canada joined NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in signing up to the Lunar Gateway project, a planned small space station that will cruise around the Moon in lunar orbit.

Presumably, this means that Canadian astronauts, until now, could have committed crimes while spending time on the International Space Station (ISS) with no legal repercussions. Commander Hadfield, you could have literally (not just fictionally) got away with murder.

The debate around the lawlessness of space isn’t entirely hypothetical. In 2019, US-born astronaut Anne McClain was accused of committing history’s first-ever space crime when she allegedly used the ISS computer to access the online bank records of her estranged partner.

The allegations were subsequently found to be false, but the whole debacle did raise the issue of potential crimes in space. Professor Ram S. Jakhu, one of the world’s leading international space law experts from McGill University in Canada, described the affair as “an important and urgent wakeup call” to adopt new legal rules of extra-territorial law.

“It would be logical and imperative that such rules are the same for all space-faring humans, irrespective of the fact that they hold different Earthly nationalities. This would need new and innovative thinking and approach, entirely different from past and present practices based on Earthly ‘State or Nation centric’ approach in the making and application of space laws,” Professor Jakhu wrote for Lawyer Monthly.

Canada proposes new law to punish moon crimes

THOM DUNN TUE MAY 3, 2022



A recent proposed update to the Canada's Criminal Code will extend the Mounties' jurisdiction to the moon. As CBC reports:

In the Budget Implementation Act, under the subhead Lunar Gateway — Canadian crew members, the amendment reads:

"A Canadian crew member who, during a space flight, commits an act or omission outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada."

That, according to the amendment, includes any act or omission committed on the [NASA-bakced orbiting space platform] Lunar Gateway, while being transported to or from the Lunar Gateway, or on the surface of the moon.

To be fair, there have only been 14 Canadian astronauts ever, period. But this law would have a potential impact beyond those 14 people, and their future country-brethren — it would also extend to citizens of other countries who commit crimes against Canadians, as Phys.org notes:

This would include crimes en route to or on the Lunar Gateway station currently in the works to orbit the moon, and also "on the surface of the moon," the document states.

Foreign astronauts who "threaten the life or security of a Canadian crew member" on a Canadian-supported space mission could also be prosecuted, according to the ways and means motion.

The prospect that a nation-state could extend its legal jurisdiction to the bodies of any of its citizens even when they're literally not on the planet is deeply concerning, to say the least (though could certainly make for some fascinating sci-fi legal drama). The news comes as the Canadian space program is in the process of developing a robot arm for the Lunar Gateway, which is set to launch in May 2024.

At press time, Chairface Chippendale could not be reached for comment.

Canada wants to prosecute moon crimes [Rafi Schwartz / MIC]

Crimes on the moon could soon be added to Canada's Criminal Code [Mark Gollom / CBC]


MOUNTIES ON THE MOON

CANADA SAYS ASTRONAUTS ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO MURDER EACH OTHER

WELL, OKAY THEN.



FUTURISM

MAY 3, 2022

The Canadian government has snuck a Criminal Code amendment into its 2022 federal budget making it a crime to commit illegal acts in outer space, Canadian newspaper The National Post reports.

Unsurprisingly, the sneaky amendment mostly refers to Canadian astronauts.

“A Canadian crew member who, during a space flight, commits an act or omission outside Canada that if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence is deemed to have committed that act or omission in Canada,” the proposed federal budget Bill C-19 reads.

The amendment suggests, curiously, that it’s technically not against Canadian law for a Canadian to murder another Canadian on the Moon right now.

But the reality, unsurprisingly, is complex. While Canada did sign a 1998 treaty binding its astronauts to Canadian criminal law, the outcome of a Canadian astronaut committing crimes against another country’s astronaut is far from clear, in the National Post‘s analysis.
Cosmic Crimes

It’s a fascinating new example of lawmakers becoming wary of an imminent future, with more humans getting the opportunity to travel into space than ever before.

The Canadian government is also likely preparing for its involvement in NASA’s Lunar Gateway, the US space agency’s planned space station in lunar orbit.

So far, only nine Canadians have traveled into space since the mid 1980s. But with the Canadian Space Agency getting more involved in US efforts to populate the Moon and its orbit, astronauts will have to watch their back: space crimes committed by space travelers could have dire consequences upon their return.

READ MORE: Canadian astronauts no longer free to rob and kill with abandon in space or on the moon [The National Post]


More on Canadian astronauts: Former Astronaut Details Quest to Grow Cannabinoids in Space

SEE: LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS 

India’s green hydrogen rush lures companies but hurdles remain

PUBLISHED MON, MAY 2 2022

Ravi Buddhavarapu@RAVISHANKARBUDD

KEY POINTS

The Modi government has announced a national green hydrogen policy with a target of producing 5 million tons per annum by 2030. It provides tax breaks and allots land to set up plants.

 
Water and cheap power are the two important resources needed to become a global green hydrogen player. 

India has a large coastline with access to seawater and ample sunlight for solar power.

Green hydrogen industry is still in its infancy and pilot plants to study the technology and costs will take at least 5 years to show results.


Hydrogen packs a lot more punch than lithium-based batteries. India’s federal minister Nitin Gadkari (second from left) seen here launching the country’s first green hydrogen-based advanced fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV), Toyota Mirai, at his residence in March.
Hindustan Times | Hindustan Times | Getty Images

The sun’s searing heat can be punishing on summer days and India’s enormous coastline makes it a challenge to defend. But vast amounts of water and abundant sunlight have opened a path to green energy that could slake India’s vast appetite for fuel.

Indian companies have pledged to commit billions of dollars to green hydrogen projects — but experts caution that the technology is still very new and its commercial viability unproven.

Green hydrogen is a clean fuel that’s produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, using renewable energy such as solar power. When burnt, it emits no exhaust, only water. Environmentalists claim it can help decarbonize heavy industries like oil refining, fertilizers, steel and cement, as well as help cut emissions globally.

“At this point, the technology is not mature or cheap enough to be used widely,” Amit Bhandari, senior fellow, energy and investment at Gateway House, a Mumbai-based think tank, told CNBC. He pointed to the example of solar energy which took about a decade to become viable.

The green hydrogen industry is still in its infancy and pilot plants to study the technology and costs will take at least five years to show results, Bhandari said.

“Ten years ago, if you had asked me if solar energy is viable, I would have said ‘no,’ even though solar power potential was known and technology was available. It took off only when the cost became comparable to traditional energy sources over a long period of time,” Bhandari said, adding that he was reluctant to write off a new technology.

Renewables currently account for almost 40% of total installed capacity in India, the world’s third largest crude oil importer after China and the U.S.

But without large-scale energy storage, renewable energy cannot become a viable alternative to traditional power sources.

WATCH NOW

VIDEO15:25

Green hydrogen could help us cut our carbon footprint, if it overcomes hurdles

Lithium batteries cannot store energy at a large scale even though they are widely used to power electric vehicles. Green hydrogen, which can be stored in large amounts, can power heavy vehicles such as trucks over long distances.

India’s government last year announced a national green hydrogen policy with a target of producing 5 million tons of the fuel annually by 2030. In February, it provided tax breaks and allotted land to set up plants to boost the investment.

Right now, India is vulnerable to all manner of external and geopolitical shocks. With green hydrogen, that vulnerability will reduce.

Amit Bhandari

SENIOR FELLOW, ENERGY AND INVESTMENT, GATEWAY HOUSE, MUMBAI

“Two important resources are required to become a large global player: water and cheap power,” the chairman of Celeris Technologies, Venkat Sumantran, told CNBC. “India has a large coastline with access to seawater and ample sunlight.”

Several states in India get good sunlight most of the year and this allows solar panel farms to be optimally deployed, said Sumantran, whose Chennai-based consultancy firm provides new energy alternatives to fossil fuels in the auto sector.

But becoming a global player also depends on how cheaply photovoltaic cells — which convert sunlight into energy — are produced. “There are many signs that policies to allow this to happen are being implemented,” he added.
Indian companies investing in hydrogen

In recent months, several Indian companies have announced green hydrogen plans:In January, India’s largest company by market capitalization Reliance Industries announced it would commit $75 billion to green energy, including an undisclosed amount toward green hydrogen projects. In early April, Hyderabad-based Greenko group and Belgium-based John Cockerill to build a two-gigawatt hydrogen electrolyzer gigafactory in India, the largest outside of China.In March, state-owned Indian Oil Corporation, which accounts for nearly half the market share of India’s petroleum products, teamed up with two private companies to launch a joint venture to develop green hydrogen. There are also plans to manufacture and sell electrolyzers, used in the production of green hydrogen.In November 2021, the world’s largest solar power developer Adani Group announced it would invest $70 billion by 2030 into renewable energy infrastructure, including in green hydrogen.

Reliance Industries and Adani Group have both pledged to make the world’s cheapest green hydrogen at $1 per kilogram, or about a quarter of a gallon — that’s down from the current cost of $5-$6. When contacted by CNBC, neither company provided details on how they were going to bring down the costs so drastically.

Green hydrogen fuels India’s geostrategic ambitions too.

Reliance Industries Chairman Mukesh Ambani predicted that green energy has the potential to be a gamechanger.

VIDEO 01:58

Plug Power CEO discusses Walmart green hydrogen deal

“When wood was replaced with coal, Europe overtook India and China to emerge the world leader. With the emergence of oil, the U.S. and West Asia outgrew others,” he said at a conference on renewables in February in Pune, a western Indian city.

“When India becomes not only self-sufficient in green and clean energy, but also a large exporter, it will help India emerge as a global power,” he said at that time.

Acknowledging there has been a lot of hype around green hydrogen, Bhandari from Gateway House said it was not necessarily a bad thing.

“A key thing is that hype can create its own reality. If there is the right amount of capital, human intelligence is thrown at a problem. And technology evolves. Costs start to fall and that creates demand,” he said.

“Momentum is on the side of innovation and costs are declining. Also, there is already demand for green hydrogen, which can be absorbed right away in the petroleum refining, fertilizer and steel industries,” he added.
Pilot projects needed

Green hydrogen will become commercially viable only when it becomes cheaper, Bhandari noted.

“You cannot start with a 500 megawatt plant,” he said, adding that even a company like Reliance, which has had long experience handling hydrogen gas at its oil refineries, would not invest in a huge plant without pilot projects. “We are several years away from large-scale capacity,” he said.

WATCH NOW

VIDEO 02:57

Green hydrogen needs innovation, technological advances to replace fossil fuels

Tapping India’s 7,500 kilometer long coastline is also complicated, Bhandari said.

“There are other claims on the coastline. It is not uninhabited. There are several large cities and ports. And, it must be weighed against the need to protect mangroves and other fragile ecosystems too,” he said.

Still, he conceded that if successful, the green hydrogen push would make India less vulnerable to price shocks in natural gas and oil.

“Right now, India is vulnerable to all manner of external and geopolitical shocks. With green hydrogen, that vulnerability will reduce,” he said.

US startup claims hydrogen output for $0.85/kg or less via new water vapor electrolyzer

Advanced Ionics has developed an electrolyzer that runs at temperatures below 650 C. It is reportedly able to produce hydrogen for $0.85/kg or less. CEO Chad Mason recently spoke with pv magazine to provide a closer look at the water vapor electrolysis tech.

MAY 2, 2022 SERGIO MATALUCCI

Image: Advanced Ionics

Milwaukee-based Advanced Ionics has launched a new water vapor electrolyzer that is designed to operate in conjunction with commonly available waste or process heat from industry. The Symbiotic Electrolyzes system runs at temperatures below 650 C, and is reportedly able to produce hydrogen for $0.85/kg or less.

“This electrolyzer is the first to work across a wide range of temperatures, from 100 C to 650 C,” Chad Mason told pv magazine. “Our Symbiotic technology is a new class of electrolyzer. It is not alkaline, PEM, or Solide Oxide (SOEC).”

Alkaline, anion exchange membrane (AEM), and polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) are cold electrolyzers using liquid water. Solid oxide electrolyzers are hot electrolyzers working with heated steam, corresponding to higher efficiency. As said, the company's electrolyzer operates with temperatures in between. The idea is that temperatures in between allow for high efficiency, while also using cheaper materials for the large-scale assembly, including the stack.

The industry is currently trying to step away from platinum. Just last week, two different research teams (the first led by Imperial College London, the second by Clemson Nanomaterials Institute) presented ways to substitute the metal.

Russia is currently the second-largest platinum producer in the world, accounting for more than 15% of world production. Similarly, Advanced Ionics does not use platinum and iridium metals.

“We use common materials more regularly found in an alkaline electrolyzer, but in a unique configuration,” Mason said.

The technology uses engineered porous metal electrodes and composite ionic materials for its electrolyte. It does not require “delicate” perfluorinated membranes or “expensive” ceramics, said Mason. Advanced Ionics did not provide any additional details about the membrane.

Andras Perl, a scientist at EnTranCe Centre of Expertise Energy at the Hanze University of Applied Sciences, explained that the charge carrier in the membrane would be a pivotal element in understanding the future of this technology.

“Our electrolyzer works in tandem with process and waste heat already being produced at industrial sites. By tapping into this existing energy source, we are able to dramatically reduce the electricity requirements for electrolysis, which is the dominant factor in the cost of green hydrogen production. Other electrolyzers require a minimum of 40 kWh per kilogram of hydrogen, and usually closer to 50 kWh. We can produce hydrogen for below 35 kWh, and that results in a dramatically lower cost,” Mason said, noting that this assumes that economies of scale have been achieved.

Economies of scale are now key for competing technologies. The timing of funding is also essential. Last week, Advanced Ionics announced the closure of $4.2 million of initial financing, led by Clean Energy Ventures.

“Leveraging this new funding, Advanced Ionics will be developing a series of demonstration projects during the next year with partners before expanding to deploy larger-scale projects. In the near future, they will also build a large-scale electrolyzer manufacturing facility to serve key markets such as Europe and North America,” Mason said.

The company is currently in negotiation with private pilot deployment partners. It expects to take commercial orders in 2024 and ship in 2025.

“We are being very aggressive on our timelines to match the desperate need for green hydrogen supply to decarbonize all aspects of our economy,” a spokesperson told pv magazine.

Clean Energy Ventures said it is optimistic about the technology.

“After more than five years of evaluating the sector, we backed Advanced Ionics because we believe this leadership team can scale a highly competitive technology to produce the lowest-cost green hydrogen at a scale,” said Daniel Goldman, co-founder and managing partner of Clean Energy Ventures.

According to IHS Markit, the levelized cost of green hydrogen produced through electrolysis was around $4/kg to $5/kg in 2021. Advanced Ionics claims to be able to provide clean hydrogen without the green premium, for less than $1/kg using Symbiotic steam electrolysis in many industrial locations.

“The levelized cost of the hydrogen will depend roughly on the cost of heat, electricity, and the capital cost of the setup. If they get cheap heat, almost free electricity, and no expensive materials, then it seems feasible,” said Perl.

He noted that the results of their first demonstration projects would test the feasibility of the technology at a larger scale and in industrial environments.

Kenney announces $50M for research centre at Canadian Hydrogen Convention in Edmonton

Author of the article:

Lisa Johnson

Publishing date:

May 03, 2022  •  

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney speaks at the Canadian Hydrogen Convention in Edmonton on Tuesday, April 26, where he announced that the province of Alberta will invest $50 million over four years to launch the Clean Hydrogen Centre of Excellence to support made-in-Alberta energy solutions and to grow the province's emerging hydrogen sector. LARRY WONG/Postmedia

Article content

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced last week the government will put $50 million over four years into a centre devoted to speeding up hydrogen sector development in the province.

Advertisement 2

Speaking at the first-ever Canadian Hydrogen Convention in Edmonton, Kenney said the Clean Hydrogen Centre of Excellence will help move projects from the initial proof-of-concept phase towards working prototypes and commercial success.

“Put simply, the centre will act as an accelerator for promising hydrogen technologies being developed in the province,” said Kenney.

The 2022 Alberta budget committed $10 million in capital funding over two years to set up the centre, which was first announced last November as part of the province’s hydrogen roadmap. The remaining $40 million in operating costs will come from Alberta’s Technology, Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) fund, collected through a carbon tax on large emitters, to be spent by provincial agency Alberta Innovates.

Kenney said he hopes the centre will draw in an additional $150 million from other levels of government and the private sector.

Laura Kilcrease, Alberta Innovates CEO, said following Kenney’s speech the centre won’t have a central facility, but will work out of several existing locations throughout the province, including C-FER Technologies and Innotech in Edmonton. Kilcrease wasn’t able to immediately provide an estimate of how many jobs will be directly created through the centre’s work, since it’s dependent on how many private-sector proposals come forward.

“I can tell you its (work) effectively started today. At this conference, we already have industry clients working with us or have come to us and we’re starting to design the projects with them,” said Kilcrease, adding the initiative will be looking at production, transportation, distribution, storage and carrier methods, and end-of-market hydrogen use.

Advertisement 

Article content

Natural gas and electricity associate minister Dale Nally said there isn’t a specific greenhouse gas emission reduction target associated with the centre, but its work will be an important factor in making Alberta a global hydrogen leader.

“It could be the next source of generational wealth for our province, and the chance to diversify and expand our list of responsible energy products,” said Nally. The UCP government estimates hydrogen to be a $2.5-trillion to $11-trillion industry worldwide by 2050.

It’s been focused on supporting the development of what is often called blue hydrogen, made from natural gas using carbon capture and storage, which has some carbon emissions.

Green hydrogen, made using renewable power, creates zero emissions.

On Tuesday, April 26, Kenney said “clean” hydrogen can be produced in many different ways, but added the government is “agnostic” about the colour, preferring to allow the private sector to lead the way.

Alberta’s blue hydrogen is among some of the cheapest to produce in the world, and the province already leads the country in producing about 2.4 million tonnes of hydrogen every year. The UCP’s hydrogen roadmap includes a goal to begin exporting hydrogen by 2030.

The element has potential to decarbonize technology across many industries, including in blending with natural gas for lower-emission heating and power, in zero-emission vehicles that are difficult to electrify like heavy trucks.

Advertisement 4

Article content

Amit Kumar, professor of mechanical engineering and NSERC Industrial Chair in Energy and Environmental Systems Engineering at the University of Alberta, said with Alberta’s resources, technology and workforce, the centre will help mobilize different stakeholders.

“You need all the parts of the economy to come together under one umbrella to make sure Alberta is a super power in hydrogen,” he said in an interview with Postmedia.

“There is an expectation that there will be more experts who would be involved in helping the government in terms of deciding on these projects,” he said.

NDP Opposition energy critic Kathleen Ganley said in a statement other countries are moving towards the production of hydrogen and Alberta will need the right policy and investments to become a leader.

“Unfortunately, the UCP has dragged their feet and downplayed the potential of our hydrogen industry. They’ve even acknowledged they’re surprised by how quickly the industry has developed. To date, their hydrogen roadmap still remains short on details and this government needs to move quickly to capitalize on the excitement in this sector to ensure Alberta doesn’t fall behind,” said Ganley, adding if elected, the NDP would commit to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

Australian island draws gas prospectors seeking pot of ‘gold’ hydrogen

May 2, 2022



On Kangaroo Island off the coast of Adelaide, a band of former gas explorers believe they are on the verge of discovering the holy grail of cheap, clean energy: naturally occurring “gold” hydrogen.

Luke Titus, a geologist from the gas and minerals sectors and director of start-up H2EX, first had the idea while searching for gold in the Brazilian jungle. There, he stumbled across “fairy circles” — bare patches in the vegetation where hydrogen seeps out of the ground.

He began researching the geology of natural hydrogen and discovered that parts of South Australia were promising exploration sites thanks to a mix of iron-rich rocks and salty water, which give rise to a chemical reaction that produces hydrogen. That hydrogen, the literature suggested, is then trapped under a layer of salty carbonate rock, creating a large natural reservoir of the gas.

“It has optimal geological conditions for natural formation of hydrogen gas,” said Titus. “It’s almost like a purple unicorn.”

Titus trawled through government archives and found a report that showed oil prospectors in the 1930s had accidentally discovered wells of almost pure natural hydrogen in South Australia when drilling for oil.

Almost a century later, with the world attempting to wean itself off fossil fuels, the energy-rich gas is emerging as a promising fuel of the future, with natural wells particularly enticing.

Unlike the more talked-about “green” and “blue” hydrogen, which use energy and capital-intensive processes to extract hydrogen from water or natural gas, natural or “gold” hydrogen needs little processing and so is potentially far cheaper and more energy-efficient to produce.

“We’re very confident that the hydrogen is there from existing discoveries,” said Neil McDonald, Titus’s business partner and director of Gold Hydrogen, the first prospector to secure a permit from the South Australian state government to explore the area.

He estimates the 9,000 sq km exploration areas, which include the Yorke Peninsula as well as Kangaroo Island, hold 1.3bn kg of hydrogen, which he said was enough to “power a million homes for 40 years”.

Others have jumped on the bandwagon, including a team of former executives from Woodside. Peter Coleman, chief executive until last year of Australia’s biggest gas producer, joined as chair of H2EX in early April.

Mark Hanna, chief executive of H2EX and also a former Woodside executive, said he first heard about natural hydrogen two years ago from contacts in France, where companies such as 45-8 Energy are exploring for the gas. This led him to read about the world’s only productive natural hydrogen field in Mali.

The west African country’s hydrogen reserve was discovered accidentally in 2015 by groups looking for underground water. Canadian group Hydroma attached a Toyota fuel cell — which generates electricity from hydrogen — to the top of the well and installed a transmission line. The well now supplies electricity to the village of Bourakébougou.

Hanna said there was significant uncertainty about the viability of natural hydrogen and admitted his venture could come to nothing. But he is hopeful, citing the “hydritic” theory proposed by some scientists: that there is enough natural hydrogen in the earth’s core and mantle to supply all of humanity’s energy needs indefinitely.

“If you believe the hydritic theory and the hydrogen is coming from deeper than the earth’s crust, you may have to drill deeper,” he said, calling this “the holy grail” of natural hydrogen exploration.

H2EX has raised enough capital to conduct preliminary exploration. If that is successful, Hanna says the group will have to raise about A$20mn ($14mn) to start drilling “two or three wells” in the most promising locations. Assuming that is a success, serious production could then begin. But he says that is several years away.

Green hydrogen, made by passing demineralised water through a renewably powered electrolyser, costs roughly $5 per kg to produce. To be competitive with fossil fuels, the Australian government says that figure needs to fall below A$2 — something advisory firm PwC has said will not happen before 2040.

Hanna hopes to produce natural hydrogen for between 50 cents and $1.50. In a world where green hydrogen production costs set the price benchmark, natural hydrogen could have a big advantage.

Many are sceptical. Scott Hamilton, senior adviser at green hydrogen industry association Hydrogen Australia, said that while natural hydrogen may have potential, it would need to be scaled up within the next decade.

“The massive drop in solar and wind power means making hydrogen from electrolysis will be dominant in Australia and around the world,” he said.

Still, serious players are taking notice of natural hydrogen. US oilfield services group Schlumberger is working with Gold Hydrogen on its South Australia project, and McDonald said oil producers had expressed interest in what he is doing.

Meanwhile the CSIRO, the Australian government’s scientific research body, is looking into the potential natural hydrogen reserves in South Australia.

Graeme Bethune, chief executive of gas industry research group EnergyQuest, said the involvement of former oil and gas people might instil distrust, but that was not a valid argument against it.

While “it’s really early days, and these wells were drilled almost 100 years ago”, he said, if South Australian natural hydrogen reserves met expectations “it could be quite cheap”.

Newly-Discovered Fossils Reveal How Ancient Dogs Differed From Today's Faithful Compan
These canines are believed to have roamed the San Diego area up to 28 million years ago.

By Adele Ankers
Updated: 3 May 2022 

Palaeontologists have unearthed the fossilized skeletal remains of a long-extinct dog species, providing new information about the evolution of the mammal.

The San Diego Union-Tribute reports that the rare fossil ended up at the San Diego Natural History Museum after being spotted protruding out of an excavated chunk of rock during a construction project in the southern region of San Diego in 2019. Palaeontologists at the museum later picked up their tools and brushes to uncover the fossil embedded within.

Image credit: William Stout.

Once the paleo team brought the fossilized cheekbones and teeth to the surface, they were able to identify the canine. They discovered that the fossil belonged to a group of animals called Archeocyons, aka "ancient dog," that would have roamed the area we now know as San Diego between 24 million and 28 million years ago during the late Oligocene epoch.

"It's like you've found a tree branch, but you need more branches to figure out what kind of tree it is," said curatorial assistant Amanda Linn, who is said to have spent nearly 120 hours chipping away at the rock to unearth the ancient dog fossil. "As soon as you uncover the bones, they start to disintegrate... I used a lot of patience, and a lot of glue."

Linn said the "picture got clearer" every time they uncovered a new bone, and fortunately for science, they uncovered a lot of bones in the process. The fossil was very much intact, with the skull, teeth, spine, legs, ankles, and toes all emerging from the rock to give the team a better view and fresh insight into how ancient dogs differed from today's faithful companions.

Post-doctoral researcher Ashley Poust, who worked on the project alongside Linn and the museum's curator of palaeontology Tom Deméré, said the Archeocyon was comparable in size to that of today's gray fox. To further support that, Poust highlighted a foxlike creature in William Stout's mural (pictured above) for its resemblance to the ancient dog species.

It's also understood that the Archeocyon "walked on its toes" and had "nonretractable claws," which could have been used to climb up trees where it's possible they may have taken up residence. They are also said to have had long legs to be able to chase their prey across long distances, paired with a strong, muscular tail that they likely used for balance.

More details about the species will no doubt come to light following further examination of the fossilized remains. "Nothing makes a curator happier than having visiting researchers to the collection," Deméré said, extending an invite to his academic peers. "A nearly complete skeleton like this can answer all sorts of questions, depending on who's interested."