Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Oct. 11 2024

 A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation.

- J.F. Clarke

The European Union at a Crossroads: A Critical Moment in a Multipolar World

The European Union (EU) is facing immense challenges. We are witnessing the emergence of a multipolar world order, a process that seems chaotic, often violent, and accompanied by a surge in military conflicts. 

Isolationism, nationalism, and protectionism are on the rise in many parts of the globe. This environment stands in stark contrast to the era in which the EU grew into an economic powerhouse—while remaining, politically and militarily, a dwarf.

In Europe, extreme forces from both the left and the right are gaining traction, reflecting a deep crisis of trust. 

Many voters question the socio-economic, political, and cultural models that have underpinned European societies. 

This distrust manifests itself in the escalating migration debate and the intensifying culture wars, which are being fought with increasing intransigence. 

As a result, some societies have become receptive to authoritarian governance. 

In Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia, illiberal democracies have taken root, sacrificing the separation of powers and media freedom to the overwhelming dominance of the executive.

This crisis of confidence has also left European societies vulnerable to Russian disinformation, as well as Chinese and Islamist propaganda. 

However, a pressing question remains: how can 27 member states find common ground and, where necessary, make concessions in their foreign policy sovereignty? 

The chances of the EU making significant geopolitical strides under the current Commission are slim. It lacks both a cohesive leadership structure and the political legitimacy needed to drive such a transformation. 

The Commission is a paper giant, entirely dependent on the approval of member states for major decisions—often requiring unanimity.

It is time to rethink the structure of the EU. Perhaps it should be smaller (like in the good ol days), or all citizens across Europe should be given a direct voice. 

If a member state becomes "too autocratic," its participation should be subject to popular vote. 

New rules are needed, and Belgium offers a potential model. It starts with mandatory voting. 

A referendum on key issues such as migration, climate policy, the future of combustion engines, and military spending must be realized. 

We need multiple layers of checks and balances, along with greater transparency, to curb corruption (farewell, Mrs. von der Leyen). Bureaucratic processes should be simplified within 12 months.

Furthermore, climate scientists, historians, agricultural experts, and rotating independent citizens must have a seat at the table. 

As for the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, such long-term targets should be off the table unless all decision-makers are under 20 years old—so they can be held accountable for their choices in 26 years.

The EU's future depends on a fundamental shift in how it operates, how it engages with its citizens, and how it confronts its internal and external challenges. 

Without radical change, its place in the new world order will be uncertain at best.

Sincerely,

Adapt or die!

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Oct. 3rd 2024

 Today the world is the victim of propaganda because people are not intellectually competent. More than anything the United States needs effective citizens competent to do their own thinking.

- William Mather Lewis

Environmental Impact of Brown Coal And Uranium Mining In East Germany.

The Socialist Unity Party (SED) of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) began its environmental policy with lofty ambitions. 

It promised not only to preserve the natural environment but to improve the societal foundations for both life and production. 

A series of laws were passed, and in 1971, a Ministry for Environmental Protection and Water Management was established. 

In the years prior, environmental protection had been enshrined as a "state goal" in the constitution—though the constitution itself was irrelevant in a regime where the party, not the state, held ultimate authority. 

The SED’s 1976 program boldly claimed to shape policy to "preserve nature as a source of life, wealth, health, and joy for the people, and to use it rationally, based on scientific foundations, for the secured and happy lives of future generations in a communist society."

Reality, however, told a darker story. The ecological balance sheet of the GDR was catastrophic. 

The country had the highest air pollution levels in Europe, with rampant sulfur dioxide and dust emissions. 

Countless bodies of water were polluted or dead, and waste management—both private and industrial—was uncontrolled for years, leaving nature as the ultimate victim. 

Although the population was kept in the dark, they could see, smell, and taste the dismal state of their environment. 

By February 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a report confirmed the worst: the GDR ranked first in Europe for sulfur dioxide emissions. Over 1.24 million people lacked access to drinking water that met basic standards. More than half of the nation's forested areas were damaged. 

Agricultural practices, driven by the pursuit of maximum yields, combined with the lack of waste management for livestock and emissions, led to widespread soil erosion, groundwater contamination, and surface water pollution.

For decades, the SED concealed these environmental atrocities, restricting the publication of environmental data as early as 1970. 

The "Statistical Annual Report for Environmental Protection and Water Management" became a classified document, accessible only to select government officials. 

By the 1980s, annual environmental reports were labeled "Top Secret," and just a handful of individuals saw them. The justification? The SED claimed that these environmental statistics could be used by class enemies to discredit the GDR. 

Thus, not only was the ecological crisis kept from the public, but it also became a secret even to the political actors of the state. 

Insiders later revealed what activists had long suspected: environmental data was systematically ignored, underplayed, or outright falsified.

By the 1970s, environmental decisions were entirely subservient to the regime’s economic and ideological priorities. 

The so-called "Mittag Office" became the authority on environmental matters, ensuring that economic growth and political goals superseded any environmental concerns. 

Even after the collapse of the regime, it became clear just how deeply the GDR’s environmental mismanagement had been buried. 

An official statement acknowledged, "The complicated ecological situation of the country is the result of years of neglect, stemming from past decisions to continue outdated production processes, ineffective increases in lignite use, and insufficient development of environmentally integrated technology."

Lignite, or brown coal, was the GDR’s primary energy source and the leading cause of its environmental devastation. 

The lack of filtration systems led to the emission of five million tons of sulfur dioxide and 2.2 million tons of dust annually. 

In comparison, West Germany, three to four times larger, emitted only a fifth of this amount. In 1988, sulfur dioxide emissions in the GDR were ten times higher than in West Germany, and carbon dioxide emissions were more than double. 

Bitterfeld, a city in the GDR, was dubbed the most polluted place in Europe. Its chemical plants spewed 40,000 tons of dust and 90,000 tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere each year, alongside thousands of tons of other pollutants.

The environmental destruction extended to water sources as well. By 1990, only 20% of the GDR’s classified river sections were usable for drinking water production with standard purification methods. 

An astonishing 45% were no longer suitable for drinking water production at all. High levels of mercury, copper, lead, and other toxins were pumped into rivers like the Elbe, creating an ecological disaster zone. 

By the time the GDR disappeared from the map, more than half of its forests were damaged, and much of its water was undrinkable.

Environmental activists were ruthlessly suppressed. The Ministry of Justice pursued those who reported on environmental damage, often charging them with espionage or sabotage. 

Any critique of the regime’s environmental failings was treated as a threat to the state. Behind its endless propaganda about "the welfare of the people," the SED ran a system that proved to be a hollow, inhuman farce.

The GDR's environmental policies—and their catastrophic failure—offer a powerful lesson for humanity. 

Propaganda may paper over the truth for a time, but in the end, the environment does not bend to ideology. The GDR’s rulers sacrificed nature, and by extension, their citizens' health and future, on the altar of political expediency and economic inefficiency. 

How much is human life really worth when stripped of the very basics—clean air, water, and land? The ecological disaster that unfolded in the GDR should serve as a stark reminder: no amount of political rhetoric can reverse environmental destruction.

In an era where environmental degradation continues to threaten our planet, the GDR’s dark legacy must be a warning for us all. 

Lies may temporarily hide the cost of exploitation, but nature will ultimately have the final word. And when that happens, no amount of propaganda will be able to mask the damage done.

In Blog we trust.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Famous last words, Sept.30th 2024

.....politics has become the conservative religion where a ridiculous statement repeated by an opinion network enough times can become accepted dogma worth killing over....

- Adaption -Guide

As we rearrange the deck chairs on our own Titanic, one glaring truth comes into focus: the tools we use to measure disaster often fall short of capturing the full scope of destruction. 

Take the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, for example. This scale, which rates hurricanes from 1 to 5, is based solely on maximum sustained wind speeds. 

But anyone who's lived through a hurricane knows it's not just about the wind. Rainfall, storm surges, and tornadoes can be just as devastating—sometimes more so. 

Why do we continue to rely on an outdated measure that ignores so many factors? Maybe it’s time for a more comprehensive approach, unless you’re voting CONservative in the U.S., in which case, don’t worry—NOAA forecasts might be optional soon anyway.

This leads us to the bigger picture: human behavior and our relationship with energy. 

Our energy use is skyrocketing. This isn't a surprise. From the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to the present, human progress has always been powered by increasing energy consumption. 

Transportation, heavy industry, mass production, and the computing revolution have all required staggering amounts of energy, and the next waves of innovation—artificial intelligence and global travel—will only demand more.

But in the midst of all this, we finally have some good news. 

Today marks a historic moment: the UK has officially shut down its last coal-fired power station. 

Uniper's Ratcliffe-on-Soar plant in Nottinghamshire has been taken offline, ending a 142-year legacy of burning coal to generate electricity.

Consider the contrast: in 1990, coal made up 65% of the UK's energy mix. A decade ago, it was still 1%. Now, it's gone. What happened? 

The UK didn't simply wait for coal to phase itself out—it was actively driven out by high carbon prices that made it financially unsustainable, and by a concerted push towards gas and wind power. 

The UK is now the first G7 nation to completely exit coal-fired power generation.

Yes, the UK isn’t part of the EU, but it’s still a global leader in this energy transition, with its own currency, nuclear defense, and—of course—fish and chips. 

The country is moving forward, but let’s not romanticize it. 

Labour still has the Herculean tasks of fixing the healthcare system and cleaning up rivers and lakes. But the progress made in energy policy? 

That’s something to celebrate.

Sincerely and a bit jealous,

Adaptation - Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, 28.September 2024

 The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.

- Paul Valery

... "and think of all these exaggerated measures in an attempt to stop global warming. We're moving billions, harassing drivers, ripping the heating systems out of houses to reduce global CO2 emissions from 0.17% to 0.10%. My dear friends, this has nothing to do with reason or balance anymore. This is a fanatical delusion we're being confronted with, and we urgently need a course correction..." - Herbert Kickl, FPÖ, speech from September 27, 2024.

Dear Austria,

You just experienced one of the worst floods in your history, and this is the best you get?

Is it possible to reconcile migration and flood protection in a political program? 

Even if the FPÖ’s election manifesto doesn’t mention the word "climate change," they could still talk about adaptive measures. 

So, what is it with right-wing extremists and their aversion to extreme weather?

" Let`s build Fortress Austria,” Kickl said last year. 

Well, at this point, anything that can stop the next flood is welcome!

Austria, handle your ballots with care. The National Socialists only needed 33.1 percent to dissolve Parliament and install a dictatorship! 

Austria, don’t copy Hungary, where Viktor Orbán has steadily succeeded in bringing the judiciary and media under his control.

China? An alternative? An authoritarian capitalism that survives only through the tools of a digital surveillance state. No, thanks. 

Or how about Putin's reactionary dictatorship, which thrives on a corrupt patronage system? We didn`t think so.

September 29 is no easy choice.

Sincerely,
Adaptationguide

Adapt or Die

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Sept. 22nd 2024

 "While the wealthy drown their sorrows in champagne, the rest struggle to afford even the fumes of despair."

- Adaptation Guide

Global inequality has become one of the most pressing issues of our time, manifesting itself not only in wealth distribution but also in the destruction of the environment. 

A recent report highlights that the wealthiest 10% of the global population—approximately 800 million people—were responsible for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. 

In stark contrast, the poorest 50%—four billion people—contributed only 12% of emissions. This gap in responsibility for environmental destruction is staggering, especially when we consider the situation in countries like Germany, where the richest 10% of households emit nearly six times more greenhouse gases than the poorest half combined. 

Inequality, it seems, isn't just an economic issue; it has a direct impact on environmental degradation.

Inequality is not merely a financial concern but a destructive force that exacerbates environmental collapse. 

While the rich enjoy immense wealth, that very wealth accelerates ecological devastation, threatening to undo itself in the long run. 

Meanwhile, poverty has its own cruel cycle: it makes people sick, and illness, in turn, deepens poverty. 

People living in poverty often cannot afford healthy food or a safe, clean living environment. Damp, mold-infested apartments in noisy, polluted areas with limited green spaces are often their only affordable option. 

This results in higher rates of anxiety, depression, and addiction among the poor, reinforcing the cycle of deprivation.

Inequality doesn’t stop at income or living conditions—it extends to health outcomes. Those in lower socioeconomic positions face a significantly higher risk of mental and physical illnesses. 

This reality underscores the deep societal divisions that have worsened over the past decades in many countries. 

Inequality exists not only along economic lines but also across gender and ethnic boundaries, further entrenching social hierarchies.

But the problem of inequality does not present itself in apocalyptic terms—its effects are creeping, gradual, and increasingly pervasive. 

Just like the climate crisis, it progresses slowly but accelerates over time. The longer inequality persists, the more entrenched its destructive effects become on both people and the planet.

So, what is to be done? 

Tackling inequality requires a multi-faceted approach. First, governments must adopt progressive taxation to redistribute wealth more fairly. This includes taxing wealth, not just income, to capture the immense riches held by the top 1%. 

Taxing carbon emissions at higher rates for the rich, who disproportionately contribute to environmental destruction, could also incentivize greener behavior.

Second, social safety nets must be reinforced. Affordable housing, universal healthcare, and access to quality education are crucial to breaking the cycle of poverty. 

Governments should focus on creating environments where everyone has an equal opportunity to thrive, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

Third, policies aimed at addressing inequality must also consider gender and ethnicity. These forms of inequality intersect with economic disparities, and addressing one without the other will only provide a partial solution.

Finally, global cooperation is essential. Inequality is a worldwide issue, and no nation can solve it alone. International institutions must work together to ensure fair trade, labor rights, and climate justice. 

Developing nations need assistance in building resilient infrastructures that can support both economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Addressing inequality is not just a moral imperative—it’s a necessity for the survival of both society and the planet. 

If we fail to act, the slow collapse will only accelerate, leaving us with an increasingly fractured world, divided by wealth, race, and environmental ruin. The time for change is now, and it must be bold, comprehensive, and global. 

There is another challenge for our ADAPTATION-GUIDE -ACTION- PLAN 2025!

Your Weekly Navigator, Sept. 17 2024

 Humanity either makes, or breeds, or tolerates all its afflictions.

- H. G. Wells

How to Survive After Flooding: Essential Steps

After a flood, the immediate danger may subside, but the aftermath presents serious risks to health, safety, and infrastructure. Here's how to navigate and recover safely:

1. Assess the Damage

• Stay Informed: Continue monitoring news updates (e.g., SKY News UK, accuweather.com) and emergency apps for important announcements about road conditions, power outages, and water safety.
• Check Roads & Bridges: Be aware that chunks of roads or bridges may be missing. Avoid areas until they are declared safe.
• Inspect Your Home: Your belongings might be waterlogged, contaminated, or covered in mold. Handle everything cautiously.

2. Health & Safety Risks

• Contaminated Water: Floodwaters often carry sewage, chemicals, and other harmful substances. Assume that the water is unsafe until authorities declare otherwise.
• Electrical Hazards: Be cautious of fallen power lines and potential gas leaks. Appliances that got wet may short-circuit.
• Mold: Mold develops quickly in damp environments. It can cause respiratory issues, so clean and dry affected areas as soon as possible.
• Mudslides: Saturated hillsides can trigger mudslides, burying roads and structures. Avoid areas with visible signs of soil instability.

3. Water Safety & Purification

• Boil Water: If authorities issue a boiled-water alert, follow these steps:
  • Bring water to a rolling boil for 1 minute to kill bacteria, parasites, and viruses.
  • Let it cool before drinking. To improve the taste, pour it into a new container and let it sit, or add a pinch of salt per quart.
• Use Bleach: If boiling isn’t possible:
  • Add 6 drops of unscented bleach (sodium hypochlorite) to 1 gallon of water.
  • Let it sit for 30 minutes before drinking. This method is safe for human consumption and is used by municipalities to purify water.
• Chemical Purification Tablets: Use a chemical purification kit (e.g., backpacker tablets) to disinfect water. A single $10 package can treat up to 15 gallons.
  • This method is useful for mobility but doesn’t eliminate all contaminants like oil or lead.

4. Avoid Contaminated Water

• Even with purification, methods like boiling or bleach do not remove chemicals such as oil, gas, or heavy metals.
• Stick to bottled water or water from your home's system if there’s any indication of toxic contamination in the water supply.

5. Health Concerns in Shelters

• Close Quarters: Flooding often forces people into shelters where disease can spread quickly. Watch out for:
  • Dysentery
  • Cholera
  • Hepatitis A
• Hygiene: Be obsessive about hand washing or use hand sanitizer regularly to minimize the risk of illness.

6. Ongoing Flood Risks

• Waterlogged Ground: Any area previously flooded will be highly susceptible to flooding again with even a small amount of rain or runoff.
• Stay Vigilant: Avoid entering floodwaters and be aware of emergency workers operating in the area. Stay out of their way and heed their warnings.

7. Emergency Preparedness

• Sign Up for Alerts: Many cities offer text, email, or phone notifications for boil-water alerts and other safety updates.
• Stock Up on Essentials: Keep at least a gallon of bleach at home, and consider investing in water purification tablets or a portable filtration system in case of future emergencies.

By following these guidelines, you can help ensure your safety and health in the critical period after a flood, minimizing both immediate dangers and long-term impacts.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Sept. 12th 2024

 Victories that are easy are cheap. Those only are worth having which come as the result of hard fighting.

- Henry Ward Beecher

The recent debate in Pennsylvania, one of the nation’s most crucial swing states, offered Vice President Kamala Harris an opportunity to go beyond the expected political platitudes. 

Instead of simply acknowledging her support for fracking, she should have seized the moment to make an impassioned case for ending our dependence on fossil fuels. 

After all, the future of our planet hinges on transitioning toward clean energy, a reality Donald Trump and his enablers in the GOP have chosen to deny.

While Trump peddled his dangerous lies and false promises, Harris should have stood strong, advocating for the Biden administration’s bold vision—the very vision laid out in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, designed to usher in a clean-energy future. 

Electric vehicles, renewable energy, infrastructure modernization—these aren’t just political talking points. They are the path forward for this country, for job creation, and for reversing the climate crisis Trump and his acolytes choose to ignore.

Likewise, when confronted with Trump's vicious and xenophobic lies about immigrants, Harris should have done more than simply defend. 

She should have reminded us all that, aside from Native Americans, this nation is immigrants. We are a tapestry of people from all walks of life, whose work, innovation, and culture have powered this country from its very founding. 

The constant scapegoating of immigrants to stoke fear and division is the same tired playbook that Trump and his cult followers cling to—but Harris should’ve forcefully exposed it for what it is: a desperate distraction.

To get to the heart of this, we need more than just words. Imagine using AI for real-time fact-checking during these debates—like subtitles flashing up each time Trump spins another of his 30,500 lies since taking office. 

How different would these debates look if there were a buzzer every time a candidate dodged a question? The truth is, debates shouldn’t just be performances. They should be moments of clarity, where voters see who has a plan for the future, and who is selling them a false past.

So, who lost that debate? Sure, the clueless cult leader peddling fear and denial. But Harris didn’t fully win, either. The audience lost out, too, because instead of a vision for progress, we got a defensive response, when we need leadership. 

Harris should be the voice of policy continuity, pushing for the real, necessary reforms that have been laid out but are far from complete.

Make no mistake—those reforms are vital to America’s future. And they’re also good for business. Clean energy, electric vehicles, and the independent power industry all stand to gain from a government that takes climate change seriously. 

The fossil fuel era is ending, and as a nation, we should be leading that transition, not getting left behind. But leadership requires more than just defending what’s already been done—it requires boldness, vision, and a willingness to take on the lies head-on.

So, Kamala, let’s hear how you’re going to get it done. 

You want to watch the planet die a slow death? Vote CONservative. You want to build a future worth living in? Vote Democrat—and push for the policies that will save lives and ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Sept. 9 2024

The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.

-  Paul Valery 

For those of you just waking up from a coma, let me break it to you: Trump did it. He and his army of lawyers have managed to push his court date beyond Election Day. 

The real question now is, how far will Trump go to stay out of jail? With nothing left to lose, the stakes are higher than ever. 

Would he burn America before facing justice?

YES.....

Remember, in both 2016 and 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the election would be rigged against him. Back in 2016, it was just his ego on the line. Sure, he won the Electoral College, but that wasn’t enough. Trump’s vanity was so bruised that he insisted he hadn’t lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton. 

He even launched a pointless investigation to prove there was electoral fraud. Because in Trump’s world, he never loses—not an election, not a court case, nothing. 

And somehow, a free society continues to reward him for it.

But let’s not kid ourselves—this isn’t just a Trump problem. Many countries have handed power to leaders who followed the same playbook. 

Look at Italy’s late Silvio Berlusconi, who spent decades bouncing between election victories and courtrooms. Or Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who’s trying to crush Israel’s independent judiciary to avoid facing justice. 

Then there’s Venezuela’s president, who launched a campaign of repression against his own people, mirroring the tactics of his idol, Hugo Chávez.

These figures aren’t about ideology; they’re about survival. They build cults of personality, conflating their personal persecution with the broader victimhood of their supporters. 

That’s why, with each indictment, Trump’s support among Republicans only grows. The more he’s attacked, the more they believe he’s the only one who can save them.

Sure, it’s easy to blame Trump for misleading the public. But at the end of the day, it’s the voters who are at fault. 

They can’t seem to separate rhetoric from reality, facts from fantasy. 

It’s becoming clearer why the Founding Fathers initially only gave voting rights to property owners—they feared the masses wouldn’t be capable of making wise decisions. 

And honestly, looking at today’s landscape, who could blame them? Social media has turned into the primary “news” source, replacing facts with a flood of fake news.

Modern U.S. elections start with a roughly 50/50 split, but thanks to the quirks of the Electoral College, Trump only needs around 47% of the vote to be back in the White House. That’s his get-out-of-jail-free card—and it could be America’s funeral.

If you’re not worried yet, you should be. The future of the nation hangs in the balance, and it’s time to wake up, sorry get out of Dodge......

Sincerely,

A.G.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Sept. 4th 2024

 Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done.

- Josh Billings

Dear Daily Disaster Diary,

Are you ready for the next COP/Circus show in Azerbaijan? The rallying cry, "The 1.5-degree limit must be upheld!" has echoed from climate activists for years. 

This goal, enshrined in the Paris Agreement, represents the world's ambition to limit global temperature rise. The "1.5 degrees" has become shorthand for preventing the worst impacts of climate change. 

Beyond this threshold, we face devastating floods, storms, extreme heatwaves, rampant hunger, and the spread of diseases. However, the 1.5-degree slogan inadequately conveys these dangers. 

It offers a single number to describe climate change and assumes a level of understanding about climate dynamics that most people lack. A 1.5-degree increase in Norway is far different from 1.5 degrees in Namibia. 

In short, this number fails to communicate the vastness of the problem and obscures how rapidly our window of opportunity is closing. 

We need a more tangible, less abstract target for climate action that people can rally around. Sea level rise would be just that; we should set a firm upper limit on its increase. 

This is a far more visible indicator of climate change than any temperature metric. It paints a vivid picture: abandoned cities, eroded coastlines, contaminated drinking water, sewage backups, destroyed habitats, and skyrocketing insurance claims. 

The limit would be around half a meter (19,68 inches), roughly corresponding to the 1.5-degree target. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that even if temperatures stay at or below 1.5 degrees, global sea levels will rise between 30(11,81 inch) and 70(27,55 inch) centimeters by 2100. 

If emissions remain unchecked, we could see up to two meters (78,74 inch) of rise. 

This increase will intensify the risk of storm surges, push water further inland, and inundate communities that have never experienced flooding before. 

Roads will become impassable, power and sewage plants will be submerged, communication systems will fail, and healthcare systems will collapse. 

Over 10% of the global population lives in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to sea-level rise. Major global cities like Miami, Mumbai, New York, Shanghai, and Tokyo are at high risk. 

In the United States, a study found that nearly half of coastal communities have failed to make any preparations. The result? Higher costs for taxpayers. 

Retrofitting with levees, new bridges, or other flood control systems is typically far more expensive than building resilient infrastructure in the first place. A clear upper limit on sea-level rise would help the public visualize the looming losses. 

Rising seas provide stark images of the threat: before-and-after photos of coastal erosion, flooding during fair weather, economic damages in coastal areas, or maps showing the expanding reach of storm surges—including the encroachment of the sea into inhabited areas. 

Around the globe, nations have failed to adequately account for the long-term risks of climate change. This failure has led to behaviors that ignore the dangers of a higher waterline, such as continuing to develop flood-prone areas. 

An official limit would encourage more informed decisions by identifying coastal infrastructure as immediately at risk. 

Nations should take the lead in pushing for a cap on sea-level rise. Not least, adopting such a limit at this year’s climate conference would emphasize that the existential threat to small island states and thousands of coastal communities is being taken seriously.

We live in hope.

Sincerely,

A.G.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, September 3rd, 2024

 The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress.

- Charles F. Kettering

We might not be spiraling into chaos overnight, but let’s not kid ourselves—the risks of climate change are undeniably growing. 

Yes, the science is clear, but now there's something else creeping into the picture: a deep sense of overwhelm that only worsens as crisis after crisis hits. 

Sure, it's tempting to sugarcoat things with uplifting stories about climate action. And yes, that's important—because hysteria paralyzes. But let's be real: nice stories alone won't cut it.

What we really need is a combination of new mindsets, financial support distributed fairly, and, most crucially, a collective will. Right now, we’re witnessing an epic battle between different factions—those clinging to outdated notions of security and those pushing for urgent transformation. 

And guess what? This tug-of-war keeps getting bogged down by narrow-minded focus on their respective “clients” or interests.

Here’s the deal: Climate protection isn’t just a chore—it’s an opportunity, both technologically and economically. And yes, success stories and positive examples can help open people’s eyes. 

But let’s not fool ourselves. The harsh realities of the climate crisis won’t just disappear with a smile and a wave. Every single opportunity that brings us closer to stability needs to be seized.

Here’s a concrete win: In January 2016, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania saw the closure of the Shenango Coke Works Facility—one of the largest coal processing plants. The result? 

An immediate drop in air pollutants like sulfur dioxide and arsenic. And here’s the kicker—a significant reduction in hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases followed. 

A study in Environmental Health Research found that from 2016 to 2018, hospital stays due to heart disease dropped compared to the three years prior. Right after the plant closed, emergency visits for other causes saw no significant change.

Now, while these results don’t prove causality, there’s a strong statistical link between the plant’s closure and the improved health of the surrounding community. That’s not just a story—that’s a call to action!

So, let's stop dithering and start making bold moves. The bitter truth of this crisis is here, and we can’t ignore it. 

Every step towards the stability we crave counts. Let’s get it done!