How To Solve Global Warming

Image borrowed from https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/plan

A little while ago, I wrote an uncharacteristically (for me) pessimistic post about global warming in which I expressed my considered opinion that our species is not going to be able to solve this problem.  Well, as Theodore Roosevelt once said, "complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining."  

I believe that's a fair comment.  The problem is, I have no specific solutions to offer.   If I did, I'd be much richer and more famous than I am.  I only know that what we have done to this point is insufficient and, indeed, what we intend to do, based on the recent COP26 conference in Scotland isn't encouraging either.  I did, however, make what I think is a useful observation that might provide a broad suggestion as to what it will take to solve this crisis.

For example, while it`s clear that the mining and the burning of coal are significant sources of the CO<sup>2</sup> gas being added to the Earth`s atmosphere, neither China nor India, two of the world`s largest coal producers, have expressed a willingness to put an end to its mining.  Instead of agreeing to "phase out" (i.e. gradually end) coal production, they committed only to "phase down" (i.e. reduce) coal production.

Other countries were quick to condemn the two nations for their unwillingness to cooperate.  However, if one realizes that coal powers a significant portion of China's power grid and, indeed, that China needed to increase production after experiencing widespread power shortages in mid to late September, one comes to realize that it's not enough to simply agree to end activities that cause global warming.  We need to understand why those activities are in place and we need a concrete plan for how those needs will be met via alternate, environmental friendly resources.

To put a more personal spin on this, you might decide to commit to stop using natural gas, another source of CO², to heat your house, but first you need to figure out how else you are going to heat it, because you do need heat.  Once you've decided how you're going to heat your home without natural gas, you need a plan for converting to that method and it's going to cost money, so you also need to budget for it.

Another example; lots of people are looking toward replacing gasoline-powered cars with electrical ones as a way to significantly reduce CO² emissions.  After all, electrically-powered cars produce zero emissions.  No-brainer, right?  Except that electrical cars are expensive and not within everybody's budget, and charging stations are arguably still too few and far between, and charging a battery still takes a heck of a lot longer than filling a gas tank.  

 Further, although the electrical power grid can sustain the handful of E.V. (electric vehicle) owners out there to date, could it also support re-charging the literal millions of E.V.s that will flood the streets once we finally do away with gas-powered cars?  I've read stories about brown-outs and black-outs due only to increased air-conditioner usage during the summer months.  Yet we seem to assume that we can support this and recharging millions of electrical cars without a problem?  

The lithium batteries that power these cars don't have an infinite life span.  How are we going to dispose of or recycle them when they start reaching their end of lives in significant numbers?  And can we produce enough lithium to make the millions of batteries required for all those millions of E.V.s in the first place?  It's considered a "rare earth" mineral for a reason, you know.  

And what kind of CO² emissions are generated by the manufacturing process behind a typical E.V. in the first  place?  Will we simply be replacing the CO² emissions that come from driving our cars, with those that come from manufacturing them?  I haven't heard many of the same people that seem eager to embrace replacing gas-powered cars with E.V.s ask any of the above questions, and I sure haven't heard them answer any of them.

Don't misunderstand me.  This is not a defense of fossil fuels nor a denigration of electrical-powered transportation.  It's simply meant to point out the shortsightedness of those who over-simplify the problem of making the very necessary conversion from greenhouse gas-producing technologies to carbon-free or, at least, carbon-neutral ones.  It's not enough to say that we'll do it or even that we'll do it by a given date.  We need a concrete roadmap that lays out how this will happen; one that acknowledges that costs and inconveniences will have to be endured by all. Until we can do that, I say again ... we're doomed!

We're Doomed!

"The trouble is, you think you have time."    - Confuscious

I'm really worried about global warming.

Yeah, I know, who isn't right?

Well, far too many climate change deniers aren't worried, but I'm not worried about them either.  Happily they're the minority and therefore not really the problem.

See, I don't think that we're going to beat this.  It isn't because we don't have the scientific knowledge or the technical expertise to make the necessary changes.  What makes climate change such an insidious threat is three things:

1. Everybody thinks it's a future problem.

Most people think that climate change is something that's coming in the next decade or two.  Climate change is here now.  Signs of it are everywhere if you only look.  The polar ice caps are receding.  Glaciers are melting.  Average global temperatures are increasing year by year.  Extreme weather events like tornadoes, hurricanes, violent thunderstorms and prolonged droughts are becoming more and more frequent.  It's no longer a question of avoiding the consequences of climate change.  It has now become a question of minimizing the damage.  And yet, still, the nations of the world do nothing substantive beyond setting carbon emission targets for the next decade or two, and then consistently missing them.

2. Everybody thinks it's somebody else's problem

The U.S.A. says that India and China aren't doing their part to reduce carbon emissions.  China and India blame the U.S.A. and each other.  Everybody vilifies Canada for our carbon rich extraction of bitumen from the Athabaska tar sands (and rightly so).  Developing countries argue that they should be exempt from carbon limitations, at least until their economies come closer to parity with those of the developed nations.  In short, everybody points the finger at someone else and cries "They're the problem, not me."

3. The people who understand the scope and urgency of the problem are not the people who make policy

Climate scientists have been sounding the alarm for years.  They show us the evidence that climate change is an existential threat.  They urge us to reduce carbon emissions now and give us grim projections of the consequences should we fail to do so,  But they can only inform and warn.  They have no power to affect the drastic changes that are needed to avoid disaster.  That falls to the government leaders and politicians who, unfortunately, consistently prioritize their own short-term goals over the long-term good.  Every politician knows that implementing the necessary changes will mean higher taxes, personal inconvenience and, therefore, a loss of voters.  Yes, you and I are also at fault, my friend because our self-serving leaders only give us that which they perceive that we want, and most of us would balk at the kinds of personal sacrifice and increased costs that real change involves.

And so the human race sleepwalks lemming-like onward toward the precipice, unwilling and unable to change course or to stop. 

The Up-side Of 2020

I think that most people would agree that 2020 was not the best of years.  Aside from causing millions of deaths and sicknesses, COVID-19 has ravaged the world economy, throwing countless people out of work and causing the closure of countless businesses.  And yet, the Halmanator, being an eternal optimist, can find silver linings among even these ponderous clouds.  Here are some positive things that have come out of 2020.

The Environment

At their peak, daily global CO₂ emissions decreased by 26% compared with the mean 2019 levels, according to Nature Climate Change.  During the spring lock-downs, stories abounded about wildlife appearing in deserted city streets.  Aside from finally moving the carbon footprint in the right direction, this also refutes, once and for all, the argument that global warming is not caused by human activity.  The moment human activity is reduced, the carbon footprint decreases.  One couldn't ask for a clearer indication of cause and effect than that.  Perhaps more importantly, this has shown us that we can reduce carbon emissions.  It's not an unattainable goal.  We simply need the collective will to change our energy consumption habits.  The move from gasoline-powered cars to electric cars has been accelerated in many countries, promising a much-needed reduction in fossil fuel consumption within the next decade or so.  That's a definite step in the right direction.

Sharing the Wealth

Because of increased unemployment, many governments introduced some form of government income support until businesses could re-open and resume their activities.  This has shown us the benefits of a universal income program, something which had already been suggested before the pandemic, but which the pandemic may have accelerated.  Several countries are now looking much more seriously at this idea.  It's an improvement over traditional welfare because the recipient isn't penalized for improving his or her financial situation.

In This Together

Most people followed the new health and safety protocols, from wearing masks and frequent hand washing to staying home as much as possible to keeping a safe distance from others.  Many employers adopted a "work from home" policy and made it possible for employees to do so.  Front line workers including health care professionals, police, fire fighters, farmers, truck drivers and even common store clerks and food servers braved and continue to brave the risk of infection on a daily basis so that essential services can be provided.  Many of those with the financial means have donated to charities and food banks to help the less fortunate.  In many cases, the pandemic has brought out the best in people and has reminded us that we're stronger and more effective when we work together.

Trump Dumped

Yes, Donald Trump, that narcissistic, misogynistic, racist, vacuous, soulless, arrogant, jingoistic, narrow-minded, deceitful, elitist charlatan, the worst excuse for a man ever to occupy the office of President of the United States of America, has been voted out of that office.  Even so, he still refuses to accept defeat graciously, which in itself speaks volumes about his deplorable dearth of character.  No matter, the American people have spoken and the word is "go", and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.  To quote Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka, "You get nothing!  You lose!  Good day sir!"

COVID-19 Vaccines

Not only have several viable COVID-19 vaccines been developed, but this has been accomplished in record time.  Perhaps this signals a new scientific approach that may herald similarly speedy cures for future diseases.  And lets not forget the brave volunteers who helped with early testing by agreeing to receive what was then an as yet untested vaccine so that it could be proven safe and effective.

2020 came with more than its share of challenges.  On that there can be no argument.  Yet it also reminded us of the indomitably of the human spirit, and what we can accomplish when we work together with goodwill and cooperation.  That's a message worth hearing.

War and Peace

Some time ago, I wrote in this blog about my thoughts on the book "Moby Dick" and I mentioned, too, that I had planned to tackle "War and Peace" next. In fact, I'm still reading it. I'm about half way through. I could have finished it by now, in spite of its notorious length but, like many substantial literary works, it starts out slowly, setting the stage and establishing the characters, and it can take a while before it really begins to capture the reader's interest. Consequently, I had set it aside for a while after starting it and, even now, I read only a chapter each day, and the chapters are short, though numerous.

Even so, I must say that I'm enjoying the book considerably more than I did "Moby Dick". Leo Tolstoy, the author, has woven a fascinating tapestry of aristocratic families made up of interesting characters whose lives and fates are interwoven against the backdrop of Imperial Russia's war with Napoleon. Tolstoy also displays a keen understanding of the human condition, as evidenced by the following paragraph.

At the approach of danger there are always two voices that speak with equal power in the human soul: one very reasonably tells a man to consider the nature of the danger and the means of escaping it; the other, still more reasonably, says that it is too depressing and painful to think of the danger, since it is not in man's power to foresee everything and avert the general course of events, and it is therefore better to disregard what is painful till it comes, and to think about what is pleasant. In solitude a man generally listens to the first voice, but in society to the second.

A most astute observation, and I paused to think about why this is. I think that it's because our individual problems are our own. Since they affect only ourselves, we know that it's up to us to solve them. When a larger problem threatens society as a whole, everyone hopes that someone else will solve it. I think that's what's happening with the issue of global warming. If the climate is really changing, we may be witnessing the genesis of an unprecedented disaster; one that threatens not only all of mankind, but every living thing on this planet. At the very least, it would mean starvation, famine, war and death on a scale never before seen. So some choose to deny that the problem exists, and even the majority of those who do accept that there is a threat leave it to others to deal with the problem. I would argue that this was at the heart of the failure of the Kyoto and Copenhagen conferences on climate change. Every participating nation felt that the problem was the responsibility of the others. None were willing to stand up and declare "The buck stops here!". Meanwhile, the problem continues and no meaningful action is taken. I can almost hear Tolstoy muttering "Я сказал вас так!" (or, since French was apparently very much in vogue in Imperial Russia, at least among the aristocracy, "Je vous ai dit ainsi!"

Tolstoy also presents us with this second insightful bit of analysis:

On the twelfth of June, 1812, the forces of Western Europe crossed the Russian frontier and war began, that is, an event took place opposed to human reason and to human nature. Millions of men perpetrated against one another such innumerable crimes, frauds, treacheries, thefts, forgeries, issues of false money, burglaries, incendiarisms, and murders as in whole centuries are not recorded in the annals of all the law courts of the world, but which those who committed them did not at the time regard as being crimes.

What produced this extraordinary occurrence? What were its causes? The historians tell us with naive assurance that its causes were the wrongs inflicted on the Duke of Oldenburg, the nonobservance of the Continental System, the ambition of Napoleon, the firmness of Alexander, the mistakes of the diplomatists, and so on.

Consequently, it would only have been necessary for Metternich, Rumyantsev, or Talleyrand, between a levee and an evening party, to have taken proper pains and written a more adroit note, or for Napoleon to have written to Alexander: "My respected Brother, I consent to restore the duchy to the Duke of Oldenburg"- and there would have been no war.

We can understand that the matter seemed like that to contemporaries. It naturally seemed to Napoleon that the war was caused by England's intrigues (as in fact he said on the island of St. Helena). It naturally seemed to members of the English Parliament that the cause of the war was Napoleon's ambition; to the Duke of Oldenburg, that the cause of the war was the violence done to him; to businessmen that the cause of the war was the Continental System which was ruining Europe; to the generals and old soldiers that the chief reason for the war was the necessity of giving them employment; to the legitimists of that day that it was the need of re-establishing les bons principes, and to the diplomatists of that time that it all resulted from the fact that the alliance between Russia and Austria in 1809 had not been sufficiently well concealed from Napoleon, and from the awkward wording of Memorandum No. 178. It is natural that these and a countless and infinite quantity of other reasons, the number depending on the endless diversity of points of view, presented themselves to the men of that day; but to us, to posterity who view the thing that happened in all its magnitude and perceive its plain and terrible meaning, these causes seem insufficient. To us it is incomprehensible that millions of Christian men killed and tortured each other either because Napoleon was ambitious or Alexander was firm, or because England's policy was astute or the Duke of Oldenburg wronged. We cannot grasp what connection such circumstances have with the actual fact of slaughter and violence: why because the Duke was wronged, thousands of men from the other side of Europe killed and ruined the people of Smolensk and Moscow and were killed by them.

I wonder what this world will be like 100 years hence, and what the historians of that time, if indeed there still be any historians, will have to say about the actions and motives of those who steer the course of history today?

Christmas Eve 1968

In Austria, where I was born, Christmas is celebrated on Christmas Eve, as it is in many European countries. Presents are opened on the evening of the 24th, friends and relatives visit each other and the festivities go on late into the night. Christmas morning is almost anti-climactic.

Even after immigrating to Canada in 1965, my family continued to observe the Austrian tradition of celebrating Christmas on the evening of the 24th. It made for some amusing cultural encounters, such as the time when one of the older neighborhood kids tried to shatter my youthful innocence by telling me that there was no Santa Claus. I, still being a Believer, refused to listen.

"Oh yeah?" challenged the boy, "Why do you think your parents make you go to bed early Christmas Eve?"

"They don't," I replied matter-of-factly. "In fact, we usually stay up late on Christmas Eve."

"You mean you're still up when the presents are placed under the tree?" asked the incredulous boy.

"Sure we are," I replied with a self-satisfied smile. My interrogator was at a loss for words.

In Austria, it's the "Christkind", or "Christ Child" that brings the presents. Santa Claus does not figure prominently, although St. Nicholas' historical significance is recognized earlier, on the 5th of December. However, my parents had reconciled the cultural discrepancy by explaining to me that, at Christmas time, St. Nicholas, or Santa Claus, became the Christkind's helper. I didn't bother elaborating upon this to my elder acquaintance, because I had learned, by that time, that Canadian children didn't know about the Christkind, and I wasn't inclined to enter into the long explanations and elaborations that would be required to enlighten the poor fellow.

The other detail that I neglected to elaborate upon was that the Christkind, and his helper, Santa Claus, always appeared in our living room while my sister and I were shut out behind closed doors, with our mother. Early in the evening, just after supper, the door to the living room would be shut, and my mother would stay with us while my father waited in the living room to greet the Christkind. Unlike our uncouth Canadian neighbors, we Austrians were not so rude as to go to bed and leave the Christkind or Santa Claus or whatever benevolent visitor chose to enter our homes to simply deposit gifts and then leave, unwelcomed and unthanked. No, it was only right that father, the head of the household, should be there to welcome our guests, offer them the refreshments that we had set out, give them a full report regarding how good or bad we children had been since the previous Christmas, and then see them out again with the appropriate thanks. Just before leaving, the Christkind would ring a bell, signalling to my mother, my sister and myself that all was ready, and then would swiftly make his escape before we could enter the room to see him.

The Christkind brought everything; not just our presents, but even the Christmas tree! That's right. Believe it or not, every December 24, in the early evening, after dinner time, I would watch my father shut himself up in our plain, unadorned living room and, when that magical bell sounded, between one and two hours later, he would again open the door to reveal a fully-decorated tree with presents beneath it. In retrospect, I have to admire the man's fortitude. To set up and decorate a Christmas tree by himself, on the very eve of Christmas, with two impatient children waiting just behind the next door, it's a wonder that I don't recall hearing him curse at the Christkind and his helper.

One of the most memorable Christmas Eves of my childhood was December 24th, 1968. That was the evening that the astronauts of Apollo 8 accomplished the first manned lunar orbit, and it was the first time that a human being saw our Earth from the moon's perspective. I remember the broadcast appearing on our old black and white television as we celebrated Christmas that evening and dreaming, as only a six-year-old boy can, of what it must be like to fly to the moon in a rocket ship.

1968 was not a great year, for the most part. The war in Vietnam had reached its apex and American troops took heavy losses during the January Tet Offensive. The American public increasingly questioned the justification and ethics of that conflict. In April, Dr. Martin Luthor King was assassinated on a hotel balcony in Memphis, Tennessee. In June, Senator Robert Kennedy was likewise assassinated.

None of that registered on my six-year-old radar. I knew nothing of Vietnam or Dr. Martin Luthor King or American politics. But I did know about rockets, and astronauts, and space, and I watched in wonder.

As the crew of Apollo 8 watched the distant Earth rise above the moon's horizon, the three astronauts, starting with Bill Anders, and followed by his crew-mates, Jim Lovell and, finally, Commander Frank Borman, read from the book of Genesis. The passage must have seemed appropriate to them. Borman ended the transmission with these words:

"And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with goodnight, good luck, Merry Christmas, and God bless all of you; all of you on the good Earth."

NASA later had to defend itself against a lawsuit launched by Madalayn Murray O'Hair, an atheist who took exception to the reading of biblical passages by the astronauts and who, in this blogger's opinion, completely missed the message behind the transmission. For the first time, men had literally removed themselves from all borders, cultures and beliefs and looked upon our home planet, and saw that we are one species, living together on one planet. From lunar orbit, no national boundaries were visible. No evidence of mankind itself was visible. All of our reasons for hating, fighting and killing suddenly faded from significance.

Our world today is, in many respects, similar to what it was in 1968. Once again, America is embroiled in not one, but two foreign wars. Once again, countless American soldiers have died as a result and, once again, people increasingly question the justification and the ethics behind these conflicts. The September, 2001 attack on New York's World Trade Center has seriously shaken America's self-assuredness. Fear and paranoia over terrorist threats, some real and some imagined, have caused a rift between Islamic and Christian cultures. International travel has been significantly hampered due to security concerns. Peoples' privacy and civil liberties have been eroded in the name of national security.

The world economy has been shaken by the 2008 Wall Street collapse. Joblessness and poverty are on the rise and entire nations stand at the threshold of bankruptcy. At the same time, the gap between the richest one percent and the rest of the world continues to widen.

We now face a new threat which has never before been seriously considered; the threat to the health of our world's climate and the natural systems that sustain us and give us life. We see increasing evidence that our habitat is changing for the worse, but we seem unable to mobilize ourselves to counter this trend. Some argue that we can't justify the expense involved, some insist that the responsibility falls on others, and some continue to deny that there is a problem at all.

Perhaps most dismaying, to me, was the news earlier this year that President Barack Obama has canceled any plans for Americans to revisit the moon in the foreseeable future. Obama's explanation is that the priority has been shifted to sending a manned mission to Mars, but this will not happen in the foreseeable future either, and many argue that the best way to reach Mars would have been by using the moon as a staging base.

As I celebrate Christmas 2010 with my family, on Christmas Eve, just as I always have, I turn on my television set and search for some message of hope, or words of encouragement. It would do me good, this Christmas, to hear any of my brothers and sisters, wishing all a happy holiday, regardless of culture or faith, and reminding us that we are all still one family living together on this good Earth.

The Light Bulb Stays On

The fourth annual Earth Hour is upon us. As I write this, several cities in the eastern hemisphere have already killed their lights for sixty minutes. My turn, here in southern Ontario, will come in about 9½ hours from the time of this writing. Except that my lights will not be going out.

What??? Heresy! Has the Halmanator no social conscience? He must be a climate change denier. Let the shunning begin! Out, demon! Out we say!

I am not a climate change denier. I believe that global warming is a real and immediate threat to humanity's future and I further believe that it's directly attributable to human activity on this planet. So why do I refuse to turn off my lights for an hour?

Because I see it as a meaningless gesture, that's why. Don't get me wrong. I understand the symbology behind the Earth Hour. I get the point. However, I don't see it accomplishing much, beyond making a point. Worse, the whole thing gradually seems to be taking on the characteristics of a social fad. We turn our lights out for an hour, we pat ourselves on our collective backs and then we go right back to our regular lifestyles, leaving lights on in empty rooms, leaving television sets on for no particular reason, driving our cars on short trips and errands for which we could walk or bicycle and idling their engines in long drive-through queues.

Want to help curb global warming? Leave your lights on today, but swap out all the regular incandescent light bulbs in your home for those curly-cue energy saving compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). Have your furnace cleaned and serviced if it's been a while. At the very least, clean or change the filter. Lower your thermostat overnight or during the days if nobody's at home. Wash as much laundry as possible in cold water, and do full loads rather than partial ones. The same goes for your dishwasher loads. Heck, do the dishes by hand! You'll ultimately be doing the planet a whole lot more good by doing these things than you will by sitting in the dark for an hour.

Happy New Year

Well, 2009 is gone and I suspect that most of us are happy to bid it a fond "Good Riddance!" Here's hoping that 2010 is an improvement.

We've seen some hopeful signs in the past year. Economists and politicians tell us that the economy has turned a corner and is back on the upswing. I take that with a grain of salt, especially when I hear the unemployment numbers and remember that I myself am now contributing to that statistic. As I review my investment portfolio, however, I can't deny that the values of my various retirement investments have generally pulled out of their year-long nosedive and seem to be trending gradually upward again; an admittedly promising sign.

The United States, not to mention the rest of the world, was finally relieved of the poisonous and inept Bush administration, which was replaced by the much more promising and seemingly well-meaning Obama administration.

The H1N1 pandemic proved to be far less deadly than it might have been. Governments, working with the pharmaceutical suppliers, were able to immunize those at highest risk with impressive speed.

While the total failure of the participating nations at the Copenhagen Summit to agree on any sort of strategy to deal with global warming may be disappointing to many, at least they didn't commit the world to an ineffective plan, as Gwynne Dyer has pointed out in his writings. Doing nothing is still better than doing the wrong thing. As a Canadian, I feel compelled to add that I'm dismayed at Canada's lack of vision and leadership on this crucial global issue.

The world continues to face serious challenges. The billions spent by the developed nations in order to prop up their largest corporations have plunged these economies into debt that may take generations to repay. The countless dollars and lives wasted in the needless and ineffectual wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan have done nothing to quash the threat of terrorism, as evidenced by the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day. Global warming remains possibly the biggest threat to the well-being of the world today, with no solution in sight.

All is not darkness and despair, however. We've seen glimmers of hope. What we need now are leaders with the vision to place the interests of the common good before narrow, short-term self-interest presiding over citizens willing to do the same. Here's hoping it begins in 2010.