Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Nov.2 2024

 We are healed of a suffering only by experiencing it in full.

- Marcel Proust

Spain floods death toll rises above 200 | BBC News

Current CO2 concentrations have surged past 420ppm. For nearly 3 million years, they hovered at around 280ppm, until the 1950s when they began to rise rapidly. In less than a century, we have artificially altered the balance of gases that regulate our planet's temperature. 

Now the climate is reacting in ways unseen for millions of years. Torrential rains and the flooding they bring demand new language; we’re running out of ways to express the unimaginable scale of what’s happening. Brace yourselves for more of, "I’ve never seen anything like this before."

The stable climate that nurtured human civilization is gone. We broke it by fundamentally changing the atmospheric chemistry that controls Earth’s climate. 

Today, we’re living in an environment no human has ever known, and no life on Earth is adapted to the relentless upheaval we’ve unleashed. 

Hundreds of millions will suffer—and die—in our lifetimes as global temperatures continue to climb, ultimately engulfing everything we hold dear. 

The life-supporting climate that sustained humanity is gone, and what we’re left with is a brutal and accelerating disaster.

The Earth we knew is becoming alien to us. At a time when we face mass migrations from sinking coastlines, unprecedented storms, and rivers that regularly overflow, it’s absurd that we’re still fighting wars. 

What we need are leaders who see humanity as one. The Environmental Protection Agency, and agencies like it worldwide, need significantly more funding—not only for research but for comprehensive mitigation plans. 

Every city manager should be at a yearly summit on climate-focused urban design, and citizens need basic training in how to read topographic maps and respond to weather patterns, so they can make their own decisions when evacuation alerts fail.

Consider Valencia, a city over 2,000 years old. Like countless other cities, it was built on thousands of years of climate stability. Today, climate change has effectively rendered this infrastructure obsolete. 

From New York’s sewers, which can’t handle more than 3 inches of rain per hour, to roads and bridges in Montana, Vermont, and Valencia, every piece of infrastructure is outdated. 

Updating it will require not only astronomical sums but also vast public will—two things humanity has yet to mobilize effectively.

So what will it take? How long before these disasters are so common they no longer make headlines? Will it take millions of lives lost in a single catastrophic event to finally force change? 

Meteorologists raised the alarm days in advance for the recent flooding in Valencia, but their warnings were downplayed by regional leadership. They had the chance to save lives by evacuating people, but instead, their negligence left many to perish.

It’s becoming increasingly dangerous to ignore science and vote for leaders who dismiss it. To make matters worse, we’re still resistant to the structural changes necessary to prevent these disasters. 

German researchers pointed out the unsettling truth: people only tend to demand flood protections once they’ve experienced a disaster firsthand. Awareness of flooding elsewhere doesn’t seem to resonate. Only once water has inundated their own streets do people call for new protections.

As it stands, flood forecasting has become more precise thanks to AI and advanced models, which allow targeted evacuations and even the use of mobile flood barriers. 

But in many regions, nothing works without larger projects like stormwater retention basins and overflow canals. A portion of flood risk can be mitigated through natural solutions, like green roofs or de-paving urban areas, but ultimately, larger-scale protection measures like levees and reservoirs are essential.

What we’re witnessing is a tragedy that could have been softened by preparation. Yet here we are, still letting profit motives, political denial, and narrow thinking drive us to disaster. The "NEW NORMAL" is here, and it’s not waiting for us to catch up.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Nov. 1 2024

 Dreams are nothing but incoherent ideas, occasioned by partial or imperfect sleep.

- Benjamin Rush

Greenwashing: When Companies Aren’t as Sustainable as They Claim | WSJ

It’s a contentious topic, and for two big reasons. We're talking about the three letters: ESG, standing for "Environmental," "Social," and "Governance." 

Around these criteria, an enormous industry has built up within international finance. Specialists across various financial professions have pivoted toward sustainability themes. 

A lot of business hinges on this, from sustainable funds to sustainability reports for companies across the board.

Yet for the green transformation to succeed—the massive economic overhaul needed to tackle the climate crisis—there’s an urgent need to attract private capital. 

That’s why it’s notable, to say the least, that a survey by the investment platform eToro—where users trade securities and can follow others' investment paths—has unexpectedly revealed a fresh wave of skepticism from retail investors toward ESG criteria. 

The survey doesn’t suggest that individual investors were always dismissive of sustainability, as one might expect given some people's indifference to environmental issues. 

In fact, it shows that not long ago, there was a strong wave of enthusiasm for sustainable investing, especially among younger generations. But now, at least some investors seem to have cooled toward ESG.

This change in sentiment is worth probing, especially with banks in Germany and other financial institutions, to see if they, too, are noticing an “ESG fatigue” among clients.

Two key hypotheses emerge from the eToro survey: first, scandals involving "greenwashing"—the marketing of investments as “green” that really aren’t—may have shaken investors' trust. 

Secondly, a broader shift in public sentiment might be at play, with all things “green” now facing more backlash after a period of enthusiasm. 

This sentiment was partially reflected in recent European election results, where green issues met with a more skeptical public. 

This shift could mean that investors are now leaning towards more self-interested criteria for their investments.

The survey numbers are telling: only 22% of retail investors said they still consider ESG factors in some form when investing. 

Twice as many, 44%, said they do not consider them. Of this latter group, a significant portion (17%) indicated that they had once considered ESG criteria but have since abandoned them. 

This phenomenon was particularly strong among younger investors, ages 18 to 34, who had been especially enthusiastic about ESG at one point but now show a marked disillusionment.

Why the shift? To put it bluntly, ESG appears to have fallen prey to its own hype. The industry that built up around sustainability has been just as quick to profit from it, and that—along with greenwashing scandals—has made some wonder if they’re being sold smoke and mirrors rather than true ethical investment opportunities. 

It’s high time for a critical reassessment: Are ESG criteria a meaningful addition to our portfolios or just another trend that, while well-intentioned, has become diluted by market opportunism? 

The industry and its players must answer this, or risk losing the confidence of those they sought to inspire.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Oct. 31 2024

 Life often presents us with a choice of evils rather than of goods.

- Charles Caleb Colton

Q & Adaptation-answer

You guys were never on FACEBOOK, TWITTER, TIKTOK etc. , you never bought a VW or a TESLA. How did you know?

In an age where the world is a screen away, and “engagement” means scrolling through a social feed until it fuels your latest outrage, we’ve opted out. 

That’s right—no Facebook, no Twitter, no TikTok. No Teslas or VWs parked in our driveways. We didn’t “catch on” by accident; it was research, pure and simple. The kind of research that every successful venture should be built on. 

And it led us to a truth as unsettling as it is simple: Big Tech isn’t here for fact-driven dialogue or rational exchanges. It’s here to rile us up because that’s what sells, and nothing rakes in profit quite like anger, fear, and uncertainty.

This business model has a name: “the outrage industrial complex.” It’s an apt phrase for a digital ecosystem built on sowing division and feeding resentment. 

Platforms thrive on tribalism—an endless cycle of “us against them,” using every inflammatory tool at their disposal. Politicians like Trump are Big Tech’s greatest beneficiaries and the ultimate rage farmers. 

Divisive by design, he doesn’t deal in unity; his playbook is all about disunity, hopelessness, and distrust. Because outrage? That’s the fuel keeping his campaign engine revved and his followers fired up.

So, would there even be a MAGA movement without Big Tech? Not a chance.

Our decision to stay off social media wasn’t about a naïve longing for simpler times; it’s a conscious stand against these digital machines that profit from discord. 

Social media’s business model isn’t simply troubling; it’s toxic. 

Our answer? Resist it. 

And “resistance” doesn’t mean glueing ourselves to buildings or resorting to slogans that burn hot and fade fast. Instead, we resist with our wallets.

When corporations openly support those whose values we oppose, we take action. 

Toyota may have its merits, but it won’t get a dollar from us while funding a party bent on dividing Americans. 

Amazon’s out, too—Jeff Bezos may rule the retail world, but we won’t buy from a conglomerate that perpetuates a dystopian level of dominance in media and market alike. 

And when companies stand up for transparency, we support them: hence, our latest subscription to The New York Times because it dared to sue EU President Ursula von der Leyen over accountability. Resistance cuts both ways.

Sure, it’s inconvenient. Sure, it’s a pain to juggle apps to avoid Amazon, or to skip the car for a train, or to find alternatives that don’t have Big Tech’s fingerprints all over them. 

But that’s what it means to draw a line in the sand. We’ve opted for inconvenient principles over convenient silence. Our wallets are our megaphones. It’s not as easy as tweeting, but it’s worth a thousand retweets.

So, what’s your resistance? Will you spend your money to support what you believe, or throw it into the outrage machine?

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Famous Last Words.....Oct. 24`

 What the American public wants in the theater is a tragedy with a happy ending.

- William D. Howells

Inhofe on Climate Change vs. Terrorism

The climate crisis is one of the most insidious problems of our time, and there’s a reason we’re struggling to address it. 

This isn’t just a matter of policy or technology; it’s a deep-rooted conflict of interests and priorities. The systems we’ve built under capitalism—our economic frameworks, our decision-making structures—are more powerful than our concerns about the climate. 

This is the real problem: no single solution will work because the interests aligned against meaningful action are overwhelming.

Take, for instance, the factory owner who might have an eco-conscious mind but still needs to generate enough returns for shareholders. No matter how green her intentions, if she doesn’t satisfy those shareholders, she won’t have the power to make sustainable choices. 

And politicians? They’re bound by election cycles. For them, any environmental decision carries weight only as far as the next election—and not a day further.

Ordinary citizens, too, find themselves torn. We’re not just members of a global society; we’re workers, consumers, and individuals first and foremost. Yes, we might care about the climate, but we also benefit from the profits of the current system, even if it exploits resources unsustainably. 

So, here we are: a society collectively reaping the gains but individually reluctant to bear the cost of a damaged planet.

And then, there’s the GOP—a political entity that might as well be actively opposed to environmental progress. Sound science confirms that we need to limit pollutants like mercury to protect children and vulnerable communities from toxic air. But with recent decisions, it's become clear that environmental neglect and even, one might argue, "environmental terrorism" are part of their playbook. 

The so-called “pro-life” stance evaporates in the face of policies that allow pollution to compromise people’s health and lives.

The Supreme Court's recent rejection of the Chevron doctrine is a stark example of the courts aligning with powerful corporate interests at the expense of the average citizen. 

The doctrine used to give agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the flexibility to interpret ambiguous laws in favor of protecting the public. 

Now, judges—who are no environmental experts—have stripped the EPA of vital regulatory authority, leaving corporations freer to pollute. 

This abandonment has made the looming environmental catastrophe all the more likely. And while Congress could theoretically fix these issues, the reality is that partisan gridlock has neutered it as a reliable avenue for meaningful change.

In the past two terms alone, the Supreme Court has gutted the EPA’s power to address climate change and water pollution. Consider the recent ruling on cross-state air pollution, in which a 5-4 majority decided to leave Eastern states vulnerable to pollution from industrialized regions in the West. 

This pollution brings devastating consequences, from smog to respiratory issues and even premature death. The party responsible doesn’t care—and why should they? Their allegiance is to ideology, not reality, and they openly dismiss scientific data that contradicts their worldview.

To understand this resistance, we need only look back at figures like the late Senator James Inhofe. 

His infamous 2015 snowball stunt in Congress, presented as “proof” that global warming is a myth, was nothing short of anti-science absurdity. 

Even then-President Obama couldn’t help but ridicule the moment. But Inhofe’s remarks reveal a deeper problem: his belief that humans are powerless to affect God’s creation, that climate change is beyond our control. 

This dangerous ideology fuels the GOP’s resistance to environmental protections. If they refuse to acknowledge the crisis, then data, evidence, and human health are nothing more than inconveniences.

So here we are, facing an environmental abyss with one party choosing willful ignorance over hard reality. 

Accurate data and scientific truth mean nothing to those who refuse to see beyond their narrow worldview. 

The power to change our path lies with each of us, but it’s a choice we all must make—and the stakes have never been higher.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Oct. 29 2024

 As soils are depleted, human health, vitality and intelligence go with them.

- Louis Bromfield

The Surprising Solutions to the World's Water Crisis

Access to clean water, sanitary facilities, and hygiene is essential for survival, yet for many people, it remains a daily struggle. 

According to the United Nations' 2022 World Water Report, more than two billion people still lacked regular access to clean water, with 1.2 billion of them deprived of even basic water supplies. 

These individuals either need more than half an hour to reach a water source or rely on water from rivers and contaminated sources. Eight out of ten affected people live in rural areas, with over half of these individuals residing in developing countries of the Global South. 

Access to sanitation is even more critical: one in four people worldwide cannot wash their hands at home with water and soap, and many are forced to relieve themselves outdoors, leading to heightened risks of diarrheal diseases, parasitic infections, and malnutrition.

Recognizing access to clean water and sanitation as a fundamental human right, the United Nations has made it a core goal to improve global water and sanitation access. 

The target is ambitious yet essential: by 2030, every person worldwide should have permanent, reliable, and affordable access to water and sanitation facilities. 

While progress has been made since 2015, the pace of implementation remains far too slow to meet this deadline. 

To achieve it, the UN estimates that global efforts need to quadruple. By enhancing water and sanitation access alone, the UN projects that over 800,000 lives could be saved each year. 

Yet, findings from a study published in The Lancet go even further: based on epidemiological data and risk factors from 2019, researchers estimated that universal access to clean water and sanitation could prevent at least 1.4 million deaths annually—equivalent to about 2.5% of global deaths. 

The majority of preventable deaths linked to unsafe water are due to diarrheal diseases, which account for one million deaths. Additionally, around 400,000 fatalities due to acute respiratory infections, often stemming from inadequate hand hygiene, are also preventable. 

According to researchers, the disease burden from parasitic roundworms could almost be eradicated with an effective water and sewage infrastructure.

Despite the clear health benefits that would result from universal access to clean water and toilets, water scarcity remains the most pressing challenge. 

This scarcity isn’t solely due to the slow expansion of supply; climate change is also turning water into an increasingly limited resource. 

In North Africa and Western Asia, up to 84% of all renewable freshwater resources are extracted annually. Globally, about 19% of renewable freshwater resources are consumed, yet over 733 million people—nearly 10% of the world’s population at the time—live in countries facing high or critical water stress (above 75%).

High water stress has devastating consequences for the environment; in the past 300 years, more than 85% of the world’s wetlands have been lost, primarily due to drainage. 

It also exacerbates social conflicts over limited water supplies. Agriculture remains the largest driver of water stress. 

According to the UN, the key to reducing water stress lies in improving water-use efficiency in agriculture, particularly in arid regions.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Oct.28 2024

 Everyone wishes to have truth on his side, but not everyone wishes to be on the side of truth.

- Richard Whately

Is the UN warning of 3,1 C global warming a surprise?

Enough with the 1.5-Degree Talk—Let’s Set Goals That Match Our New Reality

Let’s break it to ourselves: the 1.5-degree climate target is a lost cause. Back in 2022, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) declared that there’s “no plausible pathway” to reaching it anymore. 

And while veteran climate diplomats might whisper that it’s “technically” achievable, the reality is that this target has become practically unattainable.

To put it plainly, the solemn promise made by the world’s nations in 2015—to limit global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century—is dead. 

It’s expected that within just a few years, likely in the early 2030s, this highly symbolic benchmark will be crossed.

And frankly, that’s a bombshell. Because where do we go from here? Who will take on the thankless task of telling young people, with some credibility, that the world won’t come crashing down because this target wasn’t met? 

Who will own up to the failures that got us here, and who will step forward—credibly—to promise that the 2-degree goal will be our next hard stop? 

And how many fear-mongers will jump at the chance to fuel panic and division?

It’s high time for our leaders to tell it like it is: we’re losing the 1.5-degree target, and here’s why. 

Since the Paris Agreement of 2015, “climate action” has become a hazy buzzword in government policies around the globe, but also a fountain of frustration. 

Promises, both formal and informal, have gone unfulfilled. Efforts to steer national policies along a globally agreed climate path have stumbled, while earlier progress has been reversed, and more ambitious goals have been left gathering dust.

The truth is, we need a complete rethink—starting with ditching the 1.5-degree mantra that no one really believes in anymore. 

New goals must be grounded in reality, aimed at helping us adapt to a world that is warming despite our best efforts. 

It’s time to set objectives that reflect our new normal and can drive real, tangible change.

Sincerely,

Adaptation- Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Oct. 27 2024

 Knowledge of means without knowledge of ends is animal training.

- Everett Dean Martin

 Preparing for the Next Pandemic - A Matter of National Security and Responsibility

In the wake of COVID-19, governments worldwide have been given a harsh reminder: the next pandemic isn’t a question of if but when. 

This isn’t just a health issue; it’s a matter of national security, economic stability, and public trust. Pandemic fatigue may be real, but ignoring the hard-earned lessons from COVID-19 is simply not an option.

A recent report offers Canada a comprehensive guide to ensure we’re better prepared when the next crisis strikes, and its recommendations are timely, practical, and achievable. 

It wisely avoids the contentious headlines of pandemic politics – vaccine distribution woes, nursing home disasters, lockdown frustrations – and instead zeroes in on how we can gather and use information to make better decisions. 

The four focus areas, risk assessment, science advice, research coordination, and data management, are the foundation of a resilient response to any future health crisis. Here’s a look at what must change and why:

1. Risk Assessment: Knowing Our Strengths and Weaknesses

It’s not enough to calculate the risk of a pandemic. Governments also need to measure our actual preparedness. During COVID-19, static measures (like the number of testing labs) were woefully inadequate. It turns out that dynamic measures – like how quickly we detect, report, and act on a new outbreak – are what matter most in an active crisis. 

To future-proof our pandemic response, governments must establish and regularly test these benchmarks, ensuring they’re met under real-world pressures. A key recommendation is to implement continuous testing and practice drills. This would not only gauge readiness but also highlight gaps needing urgent attention.

2. Science Advice: Centralize It and Make It Actionable

Clear, reliable scientific advice is the backbone of an effective response. In the chaos of COVID-19, scientific guidance often appeared fragmented or delayed, confusing the public and policymakers alike. The report suggests a more centralized and coordinated approach, where public health advice is swiftly and consistently communicated. Science, after all, is only as useful as the trust it earns. To safeguard that trust, science advice should be communicated transparently and free from political influence.

3. Research Coordination: Prepare, Don’t Scramble

The COVID-19 pandemic saw an incredible acceleration in research – but imagine if we’d had coordination mechanisms in place beforehand. The report recommends investing in a permanent research coordination framework that bridges health, industry, and security policies. This would help us hit the ground running on treatments, testing, and vaccines without the delays caused by piecemeal collaboration. By strengthening these research networks and setting priorities in advance, we avoid scrambling for answers and instead focus on rapid, evidence-based solutions.

4. Data Management: Real-Time Information Saves Lives

COVID-19 taught us that data is power – and in a pandemic, it’s the power to save lives. The report calls for a major overhaul in how data is collected, shared, and used across sectors. Governments need a real-time data system to track the spread of disease and allocate resources effectively. More importantly, this data should be accessible not only to public health agencies but also to researchers and local leaders, ensuring that decisions are made based on the best possible information.

Implementation: The Only Way to Make Progress

Let’s be clear: a list of recommendations is meaningless without follow-through. The government must not only commit to these measures but also provide transparency on timelines, costs, and progress. This transparency isn’t just good governance – it’s accountability, a way to ensure public trust and demonstrate commitment. Implementation will be the true test of Canada’s readiness for the next pandemic.

A Call to Action

The time to act is now. If governments don’t adopt these recommendations, they’re leaving us vulnerable to another national crisis. 

And if they fail to report on their progress, it signals a lack of seriousness in protecting Canadians’ health and security. COVID-19 laid bare the intersection of health, industry, and national security. 

We have the knowledge and tools to prepare for the next crisis – now, it’s up to our leaders to turn that knowledge into action.

This report is a wake-up call, a step-by-step guide to a safer future. Let’s make sure it doesn’t gather dust on a shelf.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide