The Costs of Doing Nothing

 A recurring theme one sees these days is that switching to renewable sources of energy or adapting to the changes we're already seeing will be too expensive.

Other than a few quick comments, we can dispense with arguments about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether the planet is warming.  These issues were settled decades ago.

The greenhouse effect was first described in 1824, although it wasn't given that name at the time.  That came later.  To quote from Wikipedia:

The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed as early as 1824 by Joseph Fourier.^[12] The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide. She concluded that "An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature..."^[13][14]

 We will see some claiming that CO2 is essential, that plants need it, and so on.  Like many fairy tales, there are some grains of truth in what they say.  Without CO2, Earth would be too cold for us and many other organisms.  Plants do absorb CO2 to make carbohydrates.  Unfortunately, that glosses over more important truths.  This article from NOAA covers most of the important bits.  Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, rapidly.  That increase can be linked to increasing CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.  The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is higher than it's ever been for the past 3 million years.  Global temperatures are rising as a consequence.

We can see what's happening.  This past summer, many parts of the world experienced devastating, very intense, forest fires.  In recent times, various parts have experienced unprecedented floods, some are already experiencing sea level rise, Arctic sea ice cover in summer is decreasing, some Antarctic ice shelves are disintegrating. deserts are increasing.  The Gobi and Sahara Deserts are both increasing in size.  These are facts.

As of a month or so ago, BC had spent over $500 million fighting forest fires.  In 2021, it was over $700 million.

Europe generally (especially Spain, Greece and France) has seen forest fire costs exceed $ billion Euros (that's about C$5.7 billion) so far this year.

In the USA, the cost of fighting forest fires in 2022 was US$3.7 Billion.

That article goes on to note:

For instance, a study by University College London stated in the report showed that California’s 2018 wildfires alone cost the U.S. a whopping $148.5 billion. Capital losses and health costs within the state amounted to $59.9 billion. 

The True Cost of Wildfires is discussed in this article.

It's important to note that climate change doesn't "cause" the fires.  It just makes conditions more conducive to fire starts and more intense fires.  Warmer weather and droughts increase tree mortality, adding to the problem.

Climate change has been a key factor in increasing the state’s risk for wildfire. Hotter temperatures create drier conditions, exacerbate drought, and make fires easier to spread and harder to put out.

I'm going to pretty much ignore silly claims that "most of the forest fires" were caused by arsonists, even if Alberta Premier Danielle claims that they were.  There is NO evidence to support such a claim.  Danielle has made other silly (and dangerous) claims.  Albertans are paying the cost of those silly claims, as recent e-coli outbreaks in Calgary make very clear.  That's a story for another post.

Smoke from this summer's forest fires in Canada made its way across North America, all the way to the East Coast.  It is estimated that 8 million people die from air pollution globally each year.  Forest fires are only one part of that pollution, but they are a significant part.

And, of course, fires add to CO2 emissions, which adds to warming, and so on.  Fires also reduce the size of our forests, reducing the ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

In our area, it's been true for some time that domestic fire insurance policies are not available from at least some insurers during the summer.  That added risk for some people is also an added cost, it just isn't easy to quantify.  Also in our area, vocal conspiracists have disrupted discussions about bringing in Climate Action Plans, even as massive fires burn in our province.

Despite these and other costs, there are arguments that adaptation and mitigation are too expensive?

Someone needs to explain that line of "thinking", because it's not clear to me.

How Unprepared Are We? This Past Summer Tells the Story

 Here in Canada, the past summer was marked by wildfires, unprecedented in size and intensity.  Smoke from those fires blanketed (ironically) Canada's oil capital Calgary with days of thick smog.  It even reached as far as the East Coast of North America.  In case anyone wants to toss this off, note that established research shows this kind of air pollution increases neurological disorders not to mention other serious health effects.  The solution seems to be to wear masks but perhaps best, spending more of our summers inside.  Wonderful.

Articles are appearing highlighting how unprepared we are to deal with these conditions.  This story, and many others, highlight American unpreparedness, but it's no better here in Canada.  And people are moving because of it, one of the things this article points out.

How a Summer of Disasters Shows the US Isn’t Prepared for Climate Migration

Nationally, our government is mostly tiptoeing around the whole issue, mainly, in my opinion, because politics is a short-term game and currently the Liberals are down in the polls, fighting rearguard actions against the Conservatives who don't believe there actually IS a climate crisis.  And it's the Federal government that is building the Keystone expansion which guarantees another few decades of business as usual.

Provincially, we're continuing LNG development.  Maybe better than coal, but a fossil fuel nonetheless.  I've been unable to identify much in Provincial actions that are addressing either the root causes of the climate crisis OR how we prepare, not for what's coming, but what's already here.

Locally, our regional government is trying to roll out a Climate Action Plan, something that is being loudly opposed by a group of nitwits who apparently believe that ANYTHING the government does is an intrusion into our personal space and who also claim that this whole climate thing is a hoax, that climate is always changing, that CO2 is plant food, and other similar nonsense.  The same people, possibly, who claimed, with disastrous results, that COVID was also a hoax.

So, if this past summer didn't focus more minds on the crisis we're facing, one wonders what will.  Another summer like this one?  Two more summers?

How Bad IS Canada?

 On a per person comparison with a number of other countries, Canada does NOT come out well, according to a study done by a Research organization in Berlin.

The full story can be read here.

The naysayers, of course, are doubling down, repeating the tired old line that Canada only contributes about 1.6% to global emission totals.

It's helpful to that argument that Canada only has a population of just under 40 million.  Unfortunately, that small population coupled with our emissions, makes us one of the worst polluters on the planet, as this article points out:

Any Way You Slice it, Canada is one of the Worst Emitters on the Planet

"“This is one of the challenges our government faces ... and I think it shines a light on the need for a just transition because so much of the reasons why we're up there is that we are digging up and providing fossil fuels to the world,” Fenton said.

That massive contribution to climate change “has undermined a lot of the mythology of Canada ... being a good actor on the world stage,” he said."

Forest Fires and Climate Change Denial

 Are we seeing signs of desperation here?

As forest fires rage literally around the world, basically fulfilling what we have been told for a number of years now, people anxious to deny the existence of human-driven climate change are ramping up their conspiracies.

From Phys.org - Hawaii wildfires stoke climate denial, conspiracy theories

And in a similar article from Phys.org - Canada Wildfires Spark "Ecoterrorist" Conspiracy Theory.

This last story actually quotes the leader of a Federal political party here in Canada, spouting such nonsense.  But we've heard outrageous nonsense from him before.

So what is the reason for all these fires?

First, as we've been warned for quite a few years now, a warming planet (courtesy of our CO2 emissions), will mean more heat, less moisture and sometimes more "dry lightning".  Any of these and especially all three together, will result in more fires.

No, climate change doesn't "cause" the fires.  It just creates the conditions favourable for fires.

Second, it's pretty clear that most of the fires are caused by lightning.  The proportion varies - some can be caused by arson, most human-caused fires are caused by carelessness or accidents, and the rest can be from natural causes like lightning.

This story, also from Phys.org, notes that most of the causes come from Power lines, burning trash and lightning.

We've seen this desperation before.  During the COVID pandemic, the anti-vaxx crowd were operating in full force as the new vaccines were rolled out.  As literally billions were vaccinated with exceptionally few issues, all around the world, their supposed fears were proved wrong, so they doubled down again.  Nonsense like #diedsuddenly popped up.  Dire warnings about imminent deaths (or at least, deaths sometime, later, eventually....).  A stream of baseless claims entirely without evidence.

It's happening again, this time about forest fires.  That person referred to as MTG, that Republican representative from Georgia has - seriously - blamed high energy space lasers.  Other climate change deniers are latching on to the arson conspiracy.  Certainly, some fires are caused by arson, but I've looked at the information provided by the BC Wildfire Service.  As of August 18th, 2023, they report about 1800 fires, almost 400 still active.  They identify somewhat over 300 as having natural causes, like lightning.  About 24 were human-caused (not necessarily arson - more like untended campfires, cigarette butts, ATV use, forestry operations), and over 40 were undetermined.  In the part of the province where I live (the Southeast Fire District), I've been unable to find ANY fires listed as caused by arson, but I had an exchange with a person who insisted that "several" fires were caused that way.  She provided no details.  Kind of typical.  Make a claim.  Can't back it up.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Blamed Wildfires on Secret Jewish Space Lasers

So, I think this is, once again, desperation.  Things are happening that are challenging the narrative that some people have.  Climate change is a hoax.  The climate hasn't warmed.  Vaccines are deadly.  The virus isn't real and if it is, it's no worse than a cold.

When your personal narrative is challenged, you have two options.  Accept reality and change your narrative or double down and create fictional stories that will prop up your position.

In another post, I will present an exchange between myself and one of these conspiracy theorists.

Finding Ways to Skirt Facebook's Rules

It seems Facebook has decided to block any post that contains ANY news, apparently, not just Canadian news.  I recently tried to post a comment that contained a line from the Washington Post.  It was blocked.  Perhaps the WP has changed head offices.

This morning, I read a short article about some new subvariant of Omicron.  Nothing too exciting.  Perhaps a bit more transmissible, but current immunities seem to protect from it.

This is the story that was on the CBC's website:

I also posted a comment about anti-vaxxers in the comment section of that article.  It was blocked too (but by the CBC this time).  Apparently it's NOT OK to to point out the silliness of the anti-vaxxers position.  This is what it said:

Read the article for the information, stayed for the silly comments. And they never disappoint.

Anti-vaxxers have had almost 3 more years to push their narrative, and all they see in this most recent article is an existential threat to their cherished position. All I saw in the article was a bit of information. A new subvariant, nothing much to be concerned about yet. The virus keeps mutating. A booster perhaps, eventually. Ongoing surveillance - always best to be aware of what viruses are doing.

As I write this, a flood of anti-vaxx nonsense appearing in the comment feed below. As I say, to this crowd, anything remotely close to information is an existential threat to their cherished position.

The facts: Millions died around the world. Trivialize that fact if you must, but they're dead. Our World in Data has a very informative graph of deaths from COVID, comparing unvaccinated with vaccinated. The difference is stark. Sorry/not sorry. The flu? Yeah, multiplied by about 10x. There are numbers to support that claim. Microchips? You can't STILL be serious about that. Or about Bill Gates.... And they complain about lies politicians tell....

You'd think after years of this, the anti-vaxxers would just make their personal decisions, let the virus do what viruses do and give up making fools of themselves. Apparently we have not arrived at that point just yet.

STILL Missing the Point

 Not sure if I should be gratified, surprised or disappointed, but it is interesting to see how my one letter to the editor of The Valley Voice back in February seems to STILL have legs and how yet one more response STILL misses the point.

My original letter appeared in  The Valley Voice on February 23.  I wrote two posts about it, here, and here, the latter after being attacked by Mr Joyce.  In the intervening time, there have been one or two letters nearly every two weeks about this whole kerfuffle, on both sides of the aisle.

Once again, in the April 20th edition of The Valley Voice, yet another missive, this one from a Kris Wheeler (read it on page 5).

First, he claims that Mr Joyce's original article was merely a call for more study and better information about the adverse effects of vaccines on some people.  Mr Joyce's article did nothing of the kind.  It attempted to push, once again, illegitimate claims of serious harm caused by vaccines.  What Mr Wheeler seems not to know is that ANY adverse reactions to vaccines ARE recorded and examined, carefully, to determine if there is anything that might raise alarms.  Mr Wheeler uses wiggly words in phrases like "...the possibly vastly under-reported cases of negative vaccine reactions." and "If what Mr Joyce says is true...".  Exactly.  If anything that Mr Joyce said were true, then possibly there would be cause for alarm.  Unfortunately for Mr Joyce and Mr Wheeler, neither of their contentions are true and the facts prove it. 

Then, Mr Wheeler goes on to claim that the unvaxxed are NOT anti-vaccine.  Huh.  Prove it.  And, just for the record, the COVID vaccines were NOT mandatory.  It is true that some people needed to be vaccinated to occupy certain jobs, but many jobs have requirements and if one chooses not to meet those requirements, then it's pretty clear that one needs to look for a different job.  I'm particularly thinking of healthcare workers here, people who work closely with medically compromised patients.  Yes, they should be vaccinated and they should have a certain level of training.  Why should they not?  And if Mr Wheeler is possibly thinking of truckers who weren't allowed into Canada if they were unvaccinated, he should know that the US (and most other countries) had similar requirements.  Perhaps he should take his complaint to the United Nations.

Finally, Mr Wheeler moves on to what he sees as my outrage and my insistence that in order for him to know "the truth" he must consult a website (ie: my blog).  I'm not certain where he got the impression that I was outraged, but the antics of the anti-vaxx cult are certainly puzzling, disappointing and frustrating.  And if Mr Wheeler feels demeaned by an invitation to read further (ie: my blog or a whole host of reputable sites), then  it might explain why he knows so little about vaccines, the virus and public health.  Perhaps if he read "websites" a bit more, especially ones that present accurate information, he might learn something.

My point was that The Valley Voice has, over the past 3 years, given a disproportionate amount of space to articles with an anti-vaccine leaning.  In fact, I'm not aware of a single article in all that time that laid out the benefits of getting vaccinated.  Perhaps there was a small one that I missed?  As well, in the Voices from the Valley section, where contributors are cautioned to keep their articles short, I've noticed that some of the most long-winded and inaccurate that get space every edition are all against vaccines, public health directives and masks and go to great lengths to try and claim that the pandemic was a hoax and that all those people didn't actually die from the virus.  If my article had attempted to include a decent amount of information in rebuttal to Mr Joyce's article, it would have been refused because of length.  THAT's what I was referring to when I claimed that vaccines and their supporters can't get a "decent hearing" in The Valley Voice.  I stick to that claim.  Prove me wrong.

STILL Going on About Masks

 

Talk about not being able to let go.  

In the most recent edition of The Valley Voice, March 9th. 2023, page 5, is yet ANOTHER letter to the editor complaining about masks.  You know, the masks we were encouraged to wear for a time during the pandemic?  The masks some still wear when inside where there are many other people?

The mandates are over, although if you visit a hospital or a medical clinic, you will have to wear one, so I wonder why these people can't just let it go.  The masks had a purpose, they helped a certain amount in limiting the spread of a number of viruses and they weren't invasive at all.

What made me take notice were two seemingly contradictory claims made in the letter, separated only by a couple of paragraphs.  So, some numbers.  Bear with me.

The Numbers:

First, the writer claims that masks trap "hazardously high levels of CO2, thereby restricting available oxygen....  It is very hazardous to re-inhale your exhaled carbon dioxide."  The writer claims levels of 40,000 ppm within minutes accompanied by a drop in measured oxygen levels.

This notion has been refuted by any number of studies.  Here is a small selection:

Inhaled CO2 concentration while wearing face masks....

Does wearing a face mask reduce oxygen.. ..

Do face masks make you retain carbon dioxide?

Most of the articles that I looked at didn't show there was much of a problem, but it's been a topic that's received quite a bit of attention over the past couple of years.

Later in the same letter, the writer claims that masks are ineffective because the coronaviruses are too small.  He notes that the virus is around 0.2 microns (micrometers) in size, whereas the mask openings are between 2-10 microns.  He wavers between calling them surgical and cloth masks, so it's not quite clear which one he really dislikes, but it's probably safe to say he dismisses both as a means of controlling virus transmission.

So, there we are.  Masks, according to the writer and his expert, trap CO2 molecules.  Carbon dioxide molecules are 0.33 nm (nanometers) in diameter, according to my quick Google search.  (Remember that there are 1000 nm in a micrometer, also known as a micron).  So CO2 molecules are 0.33 nm in diameter, which is 0.00033 micrometers.

The viruses are around 0.2 micrometers (which is 200 nanometers) and the mask openings are between 2-10 micrometers (between 2000 and 10,000 nanometers) and the CO2 molecules are 0.33 nanometers in diameter.  

It's worth noting that the water droplets we exhale (on which the viruses actually float around), are between 20 and 2000 micrometers in size (20,000 nanometers to 2,000,000 nanometers).

The Contradiction:

There's something strange going on here, so let's put everything in a list so they can be compared more easily.  My list will go from smallest to largest, giving the size first in nm and then the equivalent in micrometers.  I've highlighted the commonly used measurement for each item because it's easy to get confused because of the very different scale in sizes involved.

• CO2 Molecules - 0.33 nanometers (0.00033 micrometers)
• SARS Viruses - 200 nanometers (0.2 micrometers)
• Mask openings - 2000 to 10,000 nanometers (2 to 10 micrometers)
• many bacteria - 5000 to 10,000 nanometers (5-10 micrometers) in length.
• Exhaled H2O droplets - 20,000 to 2,000,000 nanometers (20 to 2000 micrometers)

Remember, once again, the viruses don't generally float around on their own.  They're carried on water droplets that we exhale as we breathe or talk or sneeze.

The contradiction that struck me is the claim that masks would trap CO2 but won't trap virus particles, with the writer forgetting that it's the water droplets on which the viruses are carried that we're trying to capture.

The foolishness of such a claim is astounding.

At a very, very rough calculation, exhaled water droplets with their little viruses are around 1.5 MILLION times larger than CO2 molecules, give or take quite a bit, given the range in sizes.  And yet the writer is claiming the mask will trap CO2 but won't trap the viruses (which are carried on water droplets).   Let that sink in a bit.

And There's More:

I don't know if the writer of the letter is aware of things like Artificial Respiration (or Mouth-to-Mouth, if you prefer).  This is where you literally blow into another person's mouth to get them breathing again.  The writer claims that "...it's very hazardous to re-inhale your exhaled carbon dioxide."  So why do they bother teaching AR if it's so hazardous?

I also wonder if the writer is aware that many medical personnel wear masks for quite long periods of time, often while performing complex surgeries and other procedures.  Honestly, if I had realized that my surgeon was going to be anoxic within 2 minutes, I would certainly think twice about ever submitting to surgery.

He also goes on to worry about the perfect environment for bacterial growth inside a mask, where it is warm and moist.  Now there ARE some mild areas for concern here.  Masks DO trap bacteria, both exhaled AND from the surrounding air.  This study from a hospital in Bangkok found microbial contamination on both sides of used masks, with the outsides being several times greater than on the inside.  I would say that the take home messages here would be to discard the masks occasionally, don't take used masks and chew on them, don't rub used masks in your eyes, but discard of them as you would any hazardous waste.  OR, you could just wash them in a solution of warm water and soap and hang them up to dry.

I'd also suggest that this last study indicates pretty clearly that you have more to worry about from the bacteria OUTSIDE in the air outside your body than the bacteria INSIDE you.  After all, your body probably has come to a temporary truce with the bacteria inside your body, but it  might not be able to handle those from someone else quite as well.  It also shows that masks work in preventing bacterial transmission.  So there is that.  Just for reference, most bacteria are 1-2 micrometers in diameter and 5-10 micrometers long., so they're roughly in the same size range as the openings in the masks.

So where and how did the writer come to these conclusions?  From the current narrative of the anti-mask adherents and the pages of a publication called Common Ground.

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.