Tag: climate change

Oh, dear, what should the title be

I wasn’t sure what exactly I should write about so I just started writing and ended up covering a lot of different ground…

Heated Rivalry is coming to theatres. Seems an interesting idea, seeing all or some of these episodes in a group setting (not to mention on a big screen), but as always the actualities of it are proving problematic. First, there’s no way I’m going for the marathon showing of all episodes at once—that’s too long to sit in a theatre. Second, episodes 5 and 6, the cream of the crop, are playing at 10:30 pm. That’s too late! It’s way past my bedtime!

I’m having similar challenges with You Can See Everything. I’m sort of desperate to participate in the experience without encountering too many spoilers first, but the darn thing is quite long. I believe people who say it moves along quickly and doesn’t feel like the length it is, but it is over 2 hours, so you still have to fit into your day somehow. But unlike with streaming, you can’t pick the ideal time for you to watch; you have to take what the theatres have on offer. I don’t want to miss meals for it, or stay up late.

Possibly I’m inflexible curmudgeon.

Jean and I did get out to a 3-hour thingie this week: the live musical Into the Woods. We both thought it was good— excellent performers and a fun premise (fairy tale characters encounter one another in the woods, and have to deal with the aftermath of “happily ever after”), but just too long. Apologies to Sondheim fans, but some of those songs could have been cut down once we got the point of them. Chop, chop. Move it along.

(This is not disproving the inflexible curmudgeon thing.) Now we would like to see the movie. Which is only 2.5 hours long, I would note! (Still not.)

I’m also slogging through the novel What We Can Know by Ian McEwen, which is interesting enough that I don’t want to give up on it, but I am frustrated by its reading pace. Such long paragraphs! The characters are intellectuals, with so many thoughts! I miss the snap, snap reading pace of romance novels, or popular fiction by Frederik Bachmann. But what’s my hurry, though? Aren’t I retired? I am!

I can tell because I’m rewatching stuff, something I had largely given up on when still working. Pulling out the DVDs and Blu-rays and revisiting Before Sunset and Bohemian Rhapsody and Music and Lyrics and so on. And even taking a second pass through far more recent programs, like Heated Rivalry, yes, but also Off Campus, the straight hockey romance series based on a Canadian novel. I’m not even going to claim you should watch it, but I am going to say that I quite enjoyed it. Both times. It’s on Prime TV.

I also read one in the series of the books it was based on, and that took no time at all. Which is good, because the book just wasn’t that great. Frankly, the series was much better! Without getting particularly spoilery, the object of the crush, the reason for the breakup, the nature of the reconciliation… All of it was far more complex and better motivated in the series than in the book. Kind of the opposite of what you’d expect.

(With Heated Rivalry, I would say both books and series are worthwhile, just with different focuses.)

I then turned to watching Prime TV’s Sterling Point, which doesn’t have hockey, but is another Canadian story (though not Canadian production, I don’t think). It’s really a family drama at its core, with romance on the side. It takes place in Muskoka, and the locale is center point of the piece, as contrasted to New York (which barely appears). Not saying it’s perfect, but it’s fairly compelling and I got pretty caught up in it, as did a lot of people.

I then went looking for the book, and was surprised to find out there isn’t one. This is an original series! How original.

Another original we recently experienced was the live Cirque du So Gay, a circus troop with a bit of a drag / queer flair. We saw them at sold out show at Centre in the Square’s smaller Studio Theatre. We found out only at the end that this was the group’s debut performance. I wouldn’t have guessed, because it was a pretty polished mix of acrobatics, trapeze, and clowning. Quite a physically attractive group as well!

They very much encouraged us to take pictures and video, but while tempted, I ultimately declined in favor of staying in the moment. (Just a 90-minute show. Nice!)

Various circus performers on a poster labeled Cirque Du So Gay, October 17, 2026, Centre in the Square, Kitchener, Ontario.

Also rather nice has been this Fall weather. While temperatures really plunge at night, it has been a whole long series of sunny days that reach into the high teens (Celsius). One day we decided to take advantage and bike to Sole for one more round of lunch on their lovely patio. They had their heaters running, such that we didn’t even need our jackets. Very enjoyable to be dining al fresco at this time of year, especially given that the food and wine were very good.

Black and white photo of a plate of pasta with two glasses of wine, and woman in the background.
Jean got arty with his photo.

The weather also means that cat Mac has been getting near daily walks on a leash, which he really enjoys (except when they end). I play podcasts as I hold on to my end of his tether as he visits our yard and, occasionally, walks down the sidewalk. (He’d love the visit the neighbours’ yards also, but I don’t allow that). So many walks, I’ve never gotten through podcast episodes so quickly. I keep having to scramble to add more to the queue.

White cat with black markings in a teal harness, on a leash.
Actually a photo from two years ago, but it’s the same idea now.

A new addition to the podcast queue that I’d recommend for people who enjoy films that deal with romantic relationships: Love Factually, in which two scientists discuss how well or poorly certain films represent what’s known scientifically about love and romance. I’ve also been enjoying Big in Canada, which looks at musicians who are very popular in Canada (often due to CanCon laws) but not so much elsewhere. It’s far less polished, though! (At least these earlier episodes that I’m listening to now.)

Both of these shows are also adding to my list of movies to rewatch and albums to listen to again, as well. (Did I mention I have a new CD players? Very happy with it. And also with the IBroadcast app for listening to your own music. It connects right to Sonos speakers, just like Spotify does.)

But back to the cats. Gus and Shawnee are not ones for leashing it up outside. Gus loves his daily pets and combs, and hanging out in the catio, but doesn’t do well get a collar put on him, let alone a harness. Shawnee’s OK in a collar but she does not want to explore the outdoors, even in catio form.

Two cats at an open window, a black fluffy one, and a small tabby looking at the camera.
This is as close as Shawnee wants to get to the outdoors. Gus is the big black floofer beside her.

Since August, the three cats now roam the entire house, with no more gating required. It’s mostly going well, though Shawnee is a much more touchy-feely cat than Mac and Gus, so they’re negotiating that. Shawnee has also recently been featured as a Pet Patrol adoption Success Story, and is also one of their fundraising calendar cats. But I don’t think her fame is making Gus and Mac particularly jealous.

January page of a cat calendar, show Shawnee along with Kachine (black and white kitten), Quiggley (orange tabby), and Sly (black and white cat). Quote: The only thing a cat worries about it what's happening right now. After all, you can only wash one paw at a time. Lloyd Alexander,

Monday are the municipal elections, and I’ve finally decided who to vote for. The local ones are a lot more labour-intensive, with no political parties, and Waterloo has a more complicated region / city structure that adds to the complexity. Nice of Doug Ford to make it easier by now appointing the Regional Chair, i.e. the most powerful local political, instead of letting us vote for who we want! Why would should we get a say in that, eh? Democracy is clearly over-rated.

I’m still going to exercise it, though, if only to be contrary. Will say that the official Waterloo Region Votes website is really excellent, deftly gathering all the information you need on who’s running for mayor, city councillor, regional councillor, and school board trustee, and continually updating with candidate sites, news articles, Redditt threads, video debates, anything and everything you can use for research.

CBC said that climate change was a major issue for people who responded to their poll about the municipal election. That’s a self-selected group, but it’s still interesting. Can’t remember what I picked when I did the poll, but climate change was probably in there. I find myself much more willing to read about that topic now. It’s clearly happening; seems better to try to understand it than live in denial.

Bill McKibben’s Substack The Crucial Years gives a clear-eyed view of what’s going on, and it ain’t pretty, folks! But he still notes good news when he can find it. Max Fawcett of the National Observer gives frequently optimistic takes on climate policy, which can annoy people (including his own wife, he admits). But he at least does bring the facts in his arguments. For example, he will point out that for all of Mark Carney oil pipeline boosting and carbon tax cancelling, he also removed duties on Chinese solar modules; restored the EV tax credit; allowed in some Chinese EVs; created the heat pump incentive; and wants to build a national electrical grid.

Then there’s the Doomers, who focus largely on their own survival. Not in the sense of wandering off to a country cabin with a bunch of guns, but by staying in your home a city and growing your own food. And running your own solar panels, with battery backup. And purifying your own water. And putting in a composting toilet. And stocking up on canned goods. I don’t think it’s crazy; more power outages, supply shortages, and water quality issues likely are going to be more frequent problems, and it is good to prepare for them.

But I just can’t quite become a full-on “prepper”, even though I will follow the occasional small tip here and there. There’s a full book (soon to be updated), free for the downloading: Survival Illustrated

Survival book cover, of woman in a mask and combat gear jumping over a dumpster fire.

The What We Can Know novel I mentioned earlier is mostly set in the future, looking back on our time. Future historians are just amazed at how people in our society go on with our lives, burning our fossil fuels, even though all of us know perfectly well how bad the situation is going to get. In the book, AI systems eventually start some nuclear war (as per their calculations, it’s the most logical approach). Humans fairly quickly put a stop to them, not until after a fair number of lives have been lost, but before the whole world becomes a nuclear wasteland. (Yay, us?)

A side effect of these wars is that particles are released into the atmosphere (part of the “nuclear winter” thing), which actually protects the earth from some the heating. The world thereby gains some time against the otherwise unfolding climate disaster, and manages to rebuild some cities with much less travel, far fewer types of food and animal life, and all renewable energy… But not a terrible life, all in all. (Yay, us?)

All of the above isn’t all that spoilery, by the way. It’s not really the point of the book. It’s just the backstory.

Just like You Can See Everything isn’t really about Elizabeth Holmes’ time at Theranos. Or so they say.

I think we’re going Wednesday. We’re going to spring for the comfy seats.

Yes nukes, fast trains, and no oil

A few years ago, while on vacation in Costa Rica, I read George Monbiot’s Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. While I don’t recommend it as vacation reading, it was interesting. The premise was how Britain (as example country) could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 90%, yet still maintain a decent standard of living.

I thought he had a number of good ideas, but one I didn’t agree with was his dismissal of nuclear power as one option. He struggled with it, and the fact that it produces no greenhouse gas emissions, but finally concluded he couldn’t live with the waste disposal issue. But I thought the issue was global warming?

So I was kind of pleased to see the very lefty This Magazine coming around to that same point of view. While they sadly haven’t made the whole article available online, you can get the gist from the cover: “Wind and solar can’t save us from climate change. Like it or not, nuclear power can.”

The Walrus’ “Off the Rails” focused on the sad state of train travel in Canada. Though I thought I basically knew the score here, I was surprised to learn that Canada did have high-speed trains; it just never had the infrastructure to actually run them at their maximum speeds. And also, that the US actually has some high-speed trains (Boston to Washington). And that they’re thinking of adding more—that might even connect to Canada! Toronto to New York by train, anyone? That would be awesome!

Pretty struck, too, by the graph of greenhouse gas emissions, per passenger, for train, plane, and automobile. First two—not as different as I thought. Last one—much better than I thought. (Too bad the graph is not in the online version of the article. Guess they need to give you some reason to buy the paper version.)

But most striking, for sure, was The Walrus article called “An Inconvenient Talk”. Which basically argues that, way before global warming becomes a crisis, we’re going to run out of oil. And that will be a crisis.

OK, sure, not the first time we’ve heard about this “running out of easy oil” point. But Chris Turner is a very good writer:

Here’s the upshot: if you plan to drive a car or heat a house or light a room in 2030, The Talk is telling you your options will be limited, to say the least. Even if you’re convinced climate change is UN-sponsored hysteria or every last puff of greenhouse gas will soon be buried forever a mile underground or ducks look their best choking on tar sands tailings, Dave Hughes is saying your way of life is over. Not because of the clouds of smoke, you understand, but because we’re running out of what makes them.

And he focuses on a pretty convincing subject in the form of Dave Hughes, whose life mission is now to inform people about this problem looming all too soon. (10-20 years, he says.)

And, Turner boosts this with views from others. Like the IEA:

As recently as 2005, well into Dave’s second career as a peak-hydrocarbon prophet, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) — probably the most trusted name in fossil fuel reserve prediction — was dismissing peak oil’s proponents as “doomsayers.” Mainstream media coverage, meanwhile, tended to focus on the hard-core survivalist subculture the science had inspired.

Two weeks after you ride along with Dave Hughes for Talk No. 155, though, the IEA releases the latest edition of its annual World Energy Outlook, which predicts a global oil production peak or plateau by 2030. In a video that appears online soon after, the Guardian’s George Monbiot [him again] requests a more precise figure from the IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol. The official estimate, he confesses, is 2020. Monbiot also inquires as to the motivation for the IEA’s sudden about-face, and Birol explains dryly that previous studies were “mainly an assumption.” That is, the 2008 version was the first in which the IEA actually examined hard data, wellhead by wellhead, from the world’s 800 largest oil fields. Monbiot asks, with understandable incredulity, how it was that such a survey hadn’t been conducted previously. Birol’s response: “In fact, nobody has done that research. And the research we have done this year is the first in the world…”

And from Alberta oil patch executives:

He calls the $150-a-barrel price shock of last summer “just a prelude.” “People take it for granted,” he told you, “that they can go to the gas station and fill it up. I don’t think in two or three years that’s something you’ll be able to take for granted. I really don’t.”

And as you read all this, you keep thinking to yourself what Chris Turner keeps saying you are thinking to yourself: “This can’t be right…”

Addition from the perspective of 2024: I don’t, in fact, think the projections that we’d be more less running out of oil by now have proven to be correct… (Unfortunately, I guess.)

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Lying about gas taxes

This is from 2008. Re-reading in 2023, I had forgotten that the initial Liberal carbon pricing proposal would have exempted gasoline prices.

Well, I’m very pleased at this breaking news that Elizabeth May of the Green Party will be part of the televised Leaders Debate after all. And in honour of that, let’s look at an environmental issue today.

Monday, I received yet another one of those delightful (🤢), taxpayer-subsidized little Conservative polls in the mail.

This one had a headline from the Vancouver Sun on the front, with a graphic of a car fuel tank: “New 2.3 cent carbon tax sends gas price up a dime in places.” Inside, it says “Just imagine how much Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax will raise the price of gas…”

The Conservatives are lying. Knowing what a hot potato it is, the Liberal Green Shift plan is clear on this point: “This won’t include any extra tax on gasoline at the pump.” The justification for this exemption is that there is already a federal excise tax on car gasoline, set at a rate higher than that proposed for the carbon tax.

There is a debate to have here.

Is it good that diesel and natural gas prices will increase, while car gasoline prices do not? Some environmentalists would said no.

Or, what about getting rid of the excise tax and replacing it with a carbon tax? Some might think that would be a beneficial move for consumers, as gas prices might actually go down initially.

Could be an interesting discussion. Too bad we won’t hear it–because the Liberals will be too busy fighting the Conservative lie that the carbon tax includes gas at the pumps.

Why debate the facts when you can just fudge them, eh? The truth is for wimps.

My response to the Conservatives little Tax poll

Conservative MP’s keep mailing me. They give me these flyers that either say that they are great, or that some other party (usually the Liberals) are terrible, then ask me to check off a box on whether I agree with them and mail it back to them.

So far, I’ve only responded once, telling them I thought their GST tax cut was a stupid idea and they should really have just cut my income taxes. This is my response to their “Who do you think is on the right track on taxes?” question. After checking the Stephane Dion / Liberal box, I added this note:

You seem a bit confused by what the Liberals are proposing here. It’s not actually a tax on everything. It’s a tax on carbon emissions. Now, if that ends up affecting many products, that’s because our society has grown far too dependent on fossil fuels. Is this tax the best way to end that dependency? I don’t know. But it’s certainly better than doing nothing.

You also state that Liberals are desperate for money. Well, that’s a bit rich, isn’t it, from a government that has more or less squandered the big Liberal surplus on various spending programs and a very ill-conceived GST tax cut. Not too mention mailing me I don’t know how many of these silly little polls of yours.

But what’s more infuriating here is that the Conservatives are just hurling insults at the Liberals instead of engaging in an intelligent debate on this very important issue. The Liberal plan is crazy. It’s a tax on everything. It’s a trick that Dion devised downtown urban elites (and what does that one even mean? If you live downtown, it’s hard not to be urban, right? Which, of course, 80% of Canadians are. And “elites” just means smart, successful people—can’t imagine why Dion would think they have anything of value to impart!)

The Green Shift is not a tax trick; it’s a plan. You do tax carbon; you reduce income taxes. While designed to be revenue neutral overall, it’s not going to be revenue neutral to everyone, it’s true; those who pollute more will pay more.

Why don’t you talk about that? Why don’t you get into the specifics of it, and attack those where warranted, instead of hurling vague insults? Afraid that ordinary Canadians won’t get it, won’t understand? After all, they’re not very smart, not like those “downtown urban elites”… You said so yourself.

See, isn’t this fun? You should try it yourself.