Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Dec.20 2024

The way to stop financial "joy-riding" is to arrest the chauffeur, not the automobile.

- Woodrow Wilson 

What's behind Europe's car industry crisis? | Ed Conway analysis

2024 Looking Back and Forward:                      

Electric Vehicles—Yeah, But No!

Consumer demand for electric vehicles (EVs) is falling. Despite years of hype, EVs haven’t gained traction with the masses. Why? 

Because the average person simply can’t afford them. Let’s be honest: most people balk at the cost of an electric bicycle, let alone an EV. Have you seen those prices? 

Even though EV prices have come down from their eye-watering highs, they still induce sticker shock for the majority of consumers. 

Add to that the hefty costs of insurance, repairs, and maintenance, and it’s no wonder many are sticking with their trusty internal combustion engines (ICEs).

The Reality Check on EV Mandates

Governments worldwide have been trumpeting plans to phase out gas-powered cars, light trucks, and SUVs by 2030 or 2035. Admirable in theory, but recent developments suggest that these mandates are more folly than forward-thinking. 

Take Ford, for instance. The automaker initially committed to producing EVs at certain plants but has pivoted to manufacturing gas-powered Super Duty pickup trucks instead. Why? 

Consumer preferences. Meanwhile, General Motors (GM) is retreating from its ambitious goal of producing one million EVs in North America by the end of next year and has postponed opening an EV truck factory in Michigan.

Even ancillary players are feeling the pinch. Belgium-based Umicore has paused construction of a multi-million-dollar battery-materials manufacturing plant, and Swedish battery maker Northvolt AB is reportedly broke. 

Rental car giants Hertz and Sixt are also rethinking their EV fleets, citing higher repair costs and lower resale values. The ripple effects are undeniable.

Political Posturing or Practicality?

The Republican presidential nominee has vowed to “end the electric-vehicle mandate on day one,” while Elon Musk—an EV champion—continues to occupy a polarizing space in this debate. 

Pull the plug on EV tax credits and subsidies, and even the wealthy might lose interest. Let’s not forget that most politicians still drive or are chauffeured in gas-guzzlers. The exceptions? 

Maybe the Pope, who has embraced EVs. But let’s face it: he’s hardly the “influencer” the industry needs.

The Brand Problem

Even among those who can afford EVs, brand loyalty—or the lack thereof—is another barrier. 

A Tesla? Too MAGA for some. 

A Volkswagen? Not after “Dieselgate.” 

A Porsche? Sure, but only after a lottery win. 

The options are either politically fraught or financially unattainable for the average buyer.

The Case for Hitting Pause

Governments should hit pause on plans to phase out gas-powered cars. The ban is overly aggressive and tone-deaf to economic realities. 

Unless you’re Norwegian and swimming in oil and gas wealth, it’s simply not the time to push cash-strapped consumers toward costlier cars. 

Inflation may be easing, but ordinary people are still grappling with a cost-of-living crisis. Legislators must look beyond the hype and focus on practical solutions. 

Until EV prices drop to a level that doesn’t alienate the average consumer, mandates will do more harm than good.

Conclusion

EVs are an admirable goal but remain a privilege for the few, not a solution for the many. 

The industry needs to rethink its approach, addressing affordability and infrastructure challenges before pushing aggressive mandates. 

In the meantime, let’s pump the brakes on this EV obsession and prioritize policies that reflect the financial realities of the people governments are meant to serve.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Dec19 2024

Study the past if you would divine the future.

- Confucius

Are we prepared for wetter winters? I The Climate Show with Tom Heap

The Final Episode

2024 Looking Back and Forward!

What We Miss A Lot

On March 23rd, 2024, the last episode of The Climate Show aired, leaving a void for many who valued its insightful reporting and in-depth analysis of the most pressing issue of our time. 

Presented by BBC and Sky News veteran Tom Heap, the show tackled the climate crisis head-on, blending global perspectives with local impacts. After two years on air, it was abruptly discontinued, sparking widespread disappointment among viewers.

Heap’s final sign-off was a poignant reminder of the fragility of our planet: “Take care of this small, blue dot. Goodbye.” 

Social media erupted with messages of grief and frustration. Followers on X (formerly Twitter) described the show as ‘crucial’ and lamented its untimely demise. 

Many cited its role in raising awareness and providing actionable solutions to a crisis that demands immediate attention.

Yet, the cancellation also brought to light a stark and troubling divide. Critics of the show’s premise seized the moment to claim victory, portraying the end of The Climate Show as evidence that climate change is merely an “elite concern.” 

Commentators lambasted the program for being too niche and accused it of failing to resonate with the broader public. 

Such critics were quick to cite a Sky News poll revealing a lack of public engagement with climate issues. 

The survey found that nearly a quarter of Brits were unwilling to change even a single “key climate habit,” while two-thirds believed they were not personally affected by climate change. 

These statistics paint a grim picture of apathy and resistance—an unwillingness to confront a crisis that, by its very nature, affects everyone.

But let’s not mince words: this is a damning indictment of our collective priorities. How can we dismiss the most existential threat of our time as “un-sexy” or “un-entertaining”? It’s a symptom of a deeper cultural malaise, a society numbed by spectacle and driven by instant gratification. 

The failure of climate coverage to gain mass appeal isn’t a failure of the issue itself—it’s a failure of imagination, of communication, and of leadership.

The argument that climate change is not “the most important issue” is both shortsighted and dangerous. The escalating frequency of extreme weather events, the collapse of ecosystems, and the mounting economic toll of climate inaction are undeniable. 

Yet, in election after election, climate policy remains a footnote, if it appears at all. Politicians and media outlets seem content to play a cynical game, sidelining the planet in favor of topics deemed more “electable.”

This negligence is no accident. It’s the product of a system that thrives on short-term gains and avoids hard truths. 

Climate change isn’t easy to package into soundbites or slogans. It demands nuance, sacrifice, and long-term thinking—qualities that are in woefully short supply in today’s hyperpolarized media landscape.

But here’s the controversial truth: climate change coverage doesn’t need to be entertaining; it needs to be unavoidable. The facts are stark, the stakes are existential, and the solutions—while challenging—are within reach. 

If we continue to sideline this issue, the cost will be measured not just in dollars or degrees, but in lives and livelihoods.

As we look back on the loss of The Climate Show, we must also look forward. This is not the time for resignation or cynicism. It’s the time for bold action and unrelenting pressure on those in power to prioritize the planet. Because if we fail to act, there won’t be a future worth debating.

And so, the challenge remains: how do we make the climate crisis not just a topic of conversation, but the central narrative of our time? It’s not about making it sexy; it’s about making it impossible to ignore.

The Daily Climate Show: UN warns of more damage to the planet

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Dec.18 2024

 Cheer up! The worst is yet to come!

- Philander Johnson

EU climate monitor warns 2024 "certain" to be hottest year on record

2024 Looking Back In Our Christmas poem.....

Leap Years Bring Misfortune

(An Infamously Merry Christmas Poem)

Leap years, they whisper, bring despair,

Ghosts haunting children born unaware.

No vows in years when February cheats,

Cold winds bite harder, nature repeats.

Apple’s car? A dream gone awry,

False starts, dead ends, a tech giant’s cry.

Since Jobs departed, they’ve lost their flair,

Innovations? None. Just thinner air.

Prepare for war, a grim decade ahead,

Russia’s shadow looms, painted in red.

Heatwaves in the Arctic, the new "norm,"

Ice fleeting faster, the climate transforms.

How much CO₂ can we seize and bind?

Less than hoped, science leaves us blind.

Fields for coffee? Fading away,

Your morning brew might cost a year's pay.

Don’t drive your SUV to Paris’ heart,

Park fees spike, they’ll tear you apart.

Meanwhile, we cling to systems of greed,

Short-term gains over long-term need.

Politicians count votes, not years,

CEOs chase profits, not fears.

Newsrooms chase clicks, not truth to share,

A world unlivable—who’d even care?

UN climate talks lost their appeal,

Oil-state hosts, sealing the deal.

EVs, inflationary, they claim,

As costs rise, the poor take the blame.

"The Democrats forgot to rig the race,"

77 million tuned in to face

A dystopian reel of Purge and Hunger,

Where tyranny thrives, and freedom goes under.

Inequality runs wild, it’s plain to see,

We traded rights for HDTV.

A roof, booze, sports, junk food divine—

Keep those coming, and we’ll toe the line.

Tyrants grin, their rule assured,

While masses cheer for bread secured.

Merry Christmas to all, in this grim show,

A world undone by all we know.

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Dec.17 2024

I would give all the wealth of the world, and all the deeds of all the heroes, for one true vision.

- Henry David Thoreau 

2024 Looking Back and Forward!

A small nation ushered in a new era of globalization and created the first global empire – Portugal. Other European nations followed, first the Spanish, then the Dutch and the British. 

With just 8 percent of the world’s landmass, Europe dominated all continents, controlling at its peak an astounding 84 percent of the globe. 

The British went on to establish the largest empire in human history, encompassing a quarter of the world’s population. Meanwhile, the Industrial Revolution gifted Europe unparalleled economic, technological, and military supremacy. The colonial powers spread Christianity across the world.

Today, there are around 200 countries, and fewer than 15 were never European colonies. 

For half a millennium, until the mid-20th century, Europe ruled the world. But colonialism was never natural, and after World War II, the tides turned dramatically. 

Europe’s influence has now been curbed by the loss of global dominance and by radical political-economic shifts, such as the rise of developing nations. 

Many Europeans still fail to grasp what “Europe” truly is, confusing the European Union with the continent itself.

The EU has 27 member countries, while Europe as a continent has 49. The EU represents 42 percent of Europe’s landmass, 60 percent of its population, and 69 percent of its economy (in purchasing power parity). 

The EU is an important part of Europe but does not define it. The name “Europe” has existed for 2,600 years; the EU, on the other hand, was born just three decades ago. The EU represents itself, not the entire continent. Today, the EU accounts for less than 6 percent of the world’s population. India alone has three times as many people.

In 1980, Europe controlled nearly a third of the global economy. Today, the EU makes up just 14 percent. By 2050, the EU’s share of global GDP could shrink to a mere 9 percent, less than India’s, while China could command 20 percent, more than double the EU’s output.

The shifts are not merely economic. Of the 20 most important science and technology hubs in the world, 12 are in East Asia, 6 in the United States, and only 2 in Europe. 

Decades ago, the Chinese were among the poorest people on earth. Today, they boast the world’s largest middle class – bigger than the entire population of the EU. Just 25 years ago, Chinese citizens couldn’t afford to travel internationally. 

Now they represent the largest group of global tourists, who are expected to spend $400 billion annually over the next decade.

These changes extend beyond the economy. Of the world’s top 20 universities, most are located in the United States, others in East Asia, and only a few in Europe – specifically the United Kingdom and Switzerland. 

Within the EU itself, no university comes close to competing on this level. International education benchmarks, such as the PISA tests, now place Singapore at the top of all rankings, illustrating where the next global elites are being cultivated. 

Europe’s younger generation, hindered by a less competitive education system, will struggle to compete in a knowledge-based global future.

This crisis of competitiveness is existential. Europe risks falling behind as the “Global South” rises – nations that are often less friendly to freedom, democracy, and human rights. 

They are more willing to take risks, and today, more than 70 percent of the world’s population lives under autocracies.(Before the U.S. election) 

In the United Nations General Assembly, these regimes form a majority that routinely passes absurd resolutions, betraying the lofty principles on which the UN was founded.

Tragically, many of Europe’s best minds avoid politics. Yet leadership is everything. We need leaders with vision, energy, and the power to shape the future – individuals who embody honesty, courage, kindness, and intelligence. 

Leaders who can inspire societies to believe in a shared future, who possess the strength to make Europe competitive, vibrant, and proud once again. 

Without such leadership, Europe risks becoming a relic of its past glories, irrelevant in the face of a shifting world. 

The future is not inevitable; it is a choice – and the right leadership can change everything.

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Dec.16 2024

 Vote for the man who promises least-he`ll be the least disappointing.

- Bernard Baruch

Australia election: Fines, donkey votes and democracy sausages - BBC News

2024 Looking Back and Forward!

Mandatory Voting: The Cure for Democracy’s Decline?

As another nation teeters into the abyss of dictatorship, there’s a glaring lesson for the dwindling number of democracies: mandatory voting is not just an option—it’s a necessity. 

We must demand more from our citizens, especially the youth, and trust them with greater responsibilities. A democracy that coddles its people into apathy will not survive. The writing is on the wall: systemic overhaul is overdue.

Citizens, Not Cattle

A state that views its citizens solely as taxpayers and electoral fodder shouldn’t be surprised when voter turnout collapses, and skepticism toward democracy festers. 

To counteract this, the disaffected must once again become the engaged. People need to feel, viscerally, that democracy isn’t just about rights—it’s about obligations.

A Year of Civic Duty

We need a mandatory “Citizen Year,” where every young person, without exception, dedicates twelve months to the service of society. 

Be it in hospitals, care homes, refugee camps, or even in the fire department, police, or military, this year of service would be non-negotiable. 

Alongside this, a civic education boot camp would equip these young adults with a solid understanding of our political system and institutions—something schools have utterly failed to provide.

The result? A generation that knows how voting works, understands the stakes, and is primed to participate. 

After all, how can we expect 18-year-olds to care about elections when they don’t even know the difference between a first vote and a second vote in parliamentary systems? 

This ignorance isn’t limited to the underprivileged; it’s rampant across all social classes.

"Winners Earn, Losers Vote"

A troubling apathy toward democracy is evident even among the so-called hopefuls of our time: start-up entrepreneurs. 

Obsessed with wealth accumulation, they adopt a chillingly nihilistic mantra: "Winners earn, losers vote." When the disenfranchised decide elections, we end up with outcomes like Trump’s presidency or Brexit. The aftermath? A deluge of regret from those who stayed home: “If I had known, I would have voted.”

In both the United States and the EU, voter turnout has been sinking for years. And the biggest voting bloc in many elections? Non-voters. 

This is why we must seriously consider introducing a legal obligation to vote. Nations with mandatory voting see participation rates soar by 10 to 15 percentage points. These are not just numbers—they represent a more representative democracy.

Make Voting a Civic Duty

Critics argue that we should simply make voting easier: election holidays, shorter queues, mail-in ballots, online voting. Sure, let’s do all of that. But let’s not stop there. 

A responsibly exercised vote is the bedrock of democracy. It should not be optional. If you want the right to protest climate change denial, march for biodiversity, or demand social justice, you must first fulfill your duty to vote.

Democracy Deserves Better

If the majority chooses not to care about the existential threats of global warming or biodiversity collapse, so be it. A democracy reflects its people—apathetic or engaged. The real threat lies in the creeping normalization of disengagement.

Democracy isn’t a spectator sport. It requires participation, effort, and, yes, sometimes obligation. Mandatory voting isn’t an infringement on freedom; it’s the bare minimum standard for preserving it. If you can’t be bothered to vote, do you even deserve democracy?

Let the controversy rage.

Obama suggests Mandatory Voting

We Are Ready! Are You?

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide

Dear Daily Disaster Diary, Dec.15 2024

 There`s a lot of people in this world who spend so much time watching their health that they haven`t the time to enjoy it.

- Josh Billings

2020 Timeline: The Year Of The Covid Pandemic | NBC News NOW

2024 Looking Back and Forward

Are We Sleepwalking into the Next Pandemic? The H5N1 Slow Burn Threatens to Explode

The alarms are ringing, but no one seems to be listening. We are, once again, blundering our way toward a catastrophic pandemic, this time with the H5N1 bird flu. 

The warning signs are everywhere: a critically ill teenager in British Columbia infected from an unknown source, cattle herds succumbing en masse in the U.S., and a worrying case of human infection in San Francisco that may signal human-to-human transmission. 

Yet, like oblivious bystanders in a burning building, we shrug and carry on, ignoring the accumulating risks that threaten to engulf us all.

Let’s not mince words: this isn’t a drill. A genetic analysis of the virus in the B.C. teen reveals three alarming mutations—one enabling the virus to latch onto human cells, another allowing it to replicate efficiently in the human body, and a third enhancing its infectivity. 

This is evolution in action, and it’s not on our side. H5N1 is adapting, inching closer to becoming the nightmare we’ve long feared. Meanwhile, the infected teenager—whose critical condition requires a respirator—serves as a grim reminder of what’s at stake.

The parallels to past failures in pandemic preparedness are impossible to ignore. Recall the early days of COVID-19: denial, dithering, and delays paved the way for a global catastrophe. 

The playbook hasn’t changed. Despite the mounting evidence that H5N1 is poised to jump species barriers with devastating consequences, there is no coordinated response. 

Instead, we’re stuck in a cycle of reactive measures, political squabbling, and woefully inadequate public health messaging.

Take the situation with dairy cattle in the United States. In just one year, the H5N1 virus has infiltrated 675 cattle herds across 15 states. Over half of the 52 human cases documented in the U.S. during this period involved workers in dairy operations. 

Yet, containment efforts are virtually nonexistent, and only two of the 30 states that allow the sale of raw milk are testing for the virus. 

Raw milk, now lauded by anti-vaccine crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr., poses yet another unregulated pathway for zoonotic transmission. 

Kennedy, a notorious spreader of COVID-19 misinformation, is now Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. This is the man tasked with safeguarding public health? The irony is galling.

And let’s not forget the poultry industry. The virus has already decimated bird populations across North America, with over 111 million birds culled in the U.S. and nearly 13 million in Canada since 2022. 

In B.C.’s Fraser Valley alone, seven million birds were slaughtered in the past month amid 54 active outbreaks. The infected teen lives in the same region—a coincidence? Hardly. 

These outbreaks are a ticking time bomb, especially during flu season, when H5N1 could recombine with other influenza viruses, creating a highly transmissible and deadly strain.

We’ve seen this movie before. In 1918, the misnamed Spanish flu—likely originating from swine on a Kansas farm—infected one-third of the world’s population and killed an estimated 50 million people. 

Fast forward to 2024, and swine in Oregon are now testing positive for H5N1. Pigs are notorious mixing vessels for influenza, capable of generating new viral strains that can leap to humans. 

If history is any guide, we are on the precipice of a similar disaster, yet no one is taking decisive action.

The political landscape only deepens the gloom. The appointment of Kennedy and other skeptics to key health positions undermines the very institutions needed to lead the fight against emerging pandemics. 

We are dismantling the guardrails at a time when we need them most. Vaccine skepticism, pseudo-scientific rhetoric, and a disdain for evidence-based policymaking are gaining traction, leaving us ill-equipped to respond to a crisis that demands swift, science-driven interventions.

The H5N1 story is a slow burn, but every ember points to an impending inferno. As former CDC director Robert Redfield bluntly stated, “It’s not a question of if, it’s more a question of when we will have a bird flu pandemic.” 

Pretending otherwise is willful ignorance. The stakes could not be higher: failure to act now risks a repeat of 1918—or worse.

This isn’t alarmism; it’s a wake-up call. We cannot afford another pandemic to expose our collective incompetence. Surveillance, containment, and vaccination strategies must be ramped up immediately. 

We need global cooperation, not complacency; robust public health infrastructure, not hollowed-out agencies; and leaders who champion science, not conspiracy theories.

The clock is ticking, and the flames are licking at the edges. Will we act, or will we watch, paralyzed, as the next pandemic engulfs us? The choice is ours—but time is running out.

We Are Ready! Are You?

Sincerely,

Adaptation-Guide