As it happens in democracies, events in the real world affects German politics. After being severly punished in the state elections, Merkel's liberal right governement changed its mind on nuclear power, and decided to honour the previous government's promise to close all German reactors by 2022.
It is easy to hold strong opinions about nuclear power. In spite of the fact that influential green thinkers such as James Hansen and James Lovelock both advocate nuclear power as the best/only way to maintain civilisation without fossil fuels. True as they might be, what Lovelock and Hansen are talking about is the so called fourth generation of nuclear power. These plants theoretically solve a host of the problems today's plants create. Like the waste issue - in stead of building an enrourmous pile of potentially lethal waste, these plants promise to reuse the waste as fuel, until it is not dangerous any more. Which sounds great if it works. We might have no choice but to try.
The facilities that are to be closed down in Germany are nothing like this though. They are old and problem torn. Any one who believes in nucelar power should be glad to see them closed. The industry, however seems more eager to run them as long as they are profitable before building next generation plants, which is the core of the nuclear problem. Nuclear power could maybe be safe in the hands of scientists like Lovelock and Hansen, but any CEO will treat it as just another souce of large and safe income which makes him relunctant to renew it.
The reactions in Sweden, and elsewhere in Europe, to the German U-turn is shock and fear. The major newssource Dagens Nyheter claims that the price of electricity will double if the decision is carried through. Interstingly, most people interviewed in the article does not think so, but DN chose that headline. For some reason, that is what they want readers to believe.
Let us for a moment presume that it is true. Prices on electricity will double. Everyone agrees that we need to save energy - wouldn't a drastic price hike be the best way to create energy prudence? Wouldn't it drastically increase the profitability of renewable energy?
For sure it would, and the way things look right now it would be a blessing. The Swedish energy authority forecast Sweden's energy useage to keep growing until 2030. If that happens, what chances do we have to lower co2 emissions? None. Any positive development would require a shock therapy. If the decision in Germany doubles prices in Sweden - we ought to thank he Germans for saving our future. Unfortunately, it is so much easier to whine about higher prices, than to realize what problems low prices create.
IN the real world it is unlikely that the German decision will have so drastic consequenses, and it is still far from fait accompli . Merkel's decision must first be approved in the parliament, where it will come under fierce critizism from the industry and politicians. It will be intersting to see who comes out as the winner in the end - Europe's strongest civil society or an infamous industry.
In a recent dot Earth postAndrew C Revkin discusses what is most relevant when discussing the US' most lethal tornadoes since 1932 - climate change or resilient housing? The disaster is terrifying. So far 291 people are confirmed dead.
Revkin's bottom line is this: Limiting emissions of greenhouse gases is a long-term challenge that needs to be addressed in ways that achieve results; building and living resiliently in tornado zones is a real-time imperative, with or without a push from climate change.
A telling point is that Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi were much worse hit than S:t Louis. That would suggest that it is not the tornadoes themselves that kill people, but the lack of preparation. Revkin quotes the meteorologist Mike Smith, suggesting a number of different reasons - St Louis has warning system independent of the power grid and far better shelters in form of basements.
Of course, quoting this Mike Smith is not the best idea in an article that relates to climate change. Smith does not believe in IPCC climatic projections - you can watch him make a fool of himself in this video on YouTube. Isn't it embarrassing with a meteorologist who can't tell the difference between a weather forecast and a climate projection?
But you can not accuse the man of being inconsistent. Just as he doesn't think that the 2011 tornadoes are related to climate change, he didn't think that the 2008 floods were.
It will probably take more than a couple of deaths to convince a man like Mike Smith. My post, however is about Revkin, an influential writer I have a certain amount of respect for. It is sad to see him fall in the age-old mistake of putting the question as a choice between people and planet. This particular disaster shows maybe more than any other that it is instead a choice between profit/power or planet/people.
Let's begin with the tricky question that Smith doesn't understand - the difference between climate and weather. Weather is what creates specific storms. Climate is what causes the likeliness for all kinds of weathers. In a world with 349 ppm co2 in the atmosphere storms like those ravaging Alabama are rare phenomena. In a world with 500 ppm co2 in the atmosphere they are commonplace. but there will be windy days and sunny days in both worlds.
Climate change is the obvious culprit if we see a trend of more frequent and more devastating storms (as we do), but it can not cause any specific storm. An analogy is that no one has died from an unhealthy diet. If you in spite of that think that a healthy diet can make you live longer and healthier, you have every reason to believe that climate change will lead to more storms like these, and that extreme weather events are more common now than in our grandparent's times because of their actions.
What Revkin, and Smith as well, does grasp is that the outcome of these extreme weather events does not depend on the levels of co2 in the atmosphere, but on how well prepared we are for the kind of eather these levels produce. It is ironic that a less developed economy would be better equipped than ours to withstand climate change - our global supply chains and coastal metropoles are anything but resilient. Waters are rising, and if trucks can not travel 24/7 through Europe the risk of foot shortages in a country like Sweden would be real.
Too many of those killed in these storms lived in mobile homes, or in homes not fitting to withstand a tornado. Many of them were poor. If we allow poverty to exist we expose thousand of citizens to dangerous weather. How can we make sure that that is not the case next time a twister strikes? Revkin lists a number of improvements but forgets to mention that it would take regulations and surveillance to make sure they are followed. Which might not be such an easy thing to achieve in today's political climate.
Which brings us to the heart of the matter - the real problem is not our lifestyle - it changes faster than we can think, but a corrupted political system ruled by private interests. James Hansen's book Storms of my grandchildrena> makes it very clear. A working democracy would not let oil companies hunt for oil in Canadian tar sands, neither on off shore drilling sites. In a working democracy scientists would be unhindered to communicate with politicians and public. If the facts that everybody knows were presented with the urgency of economic news, it would not be difficult to muster political support for battling climate change. After all, it is the voters' basements who will be flooded.
So how come politicians find time to hunt terrorists but not to protect its citizens? Unless we presume a conspiracy, or shameless stupidity among voters and politicians alike, the simple answer is that the political system is controlled by interests that make profits in the world as it is, and therefore have a strong incentive not tchange it. They are the one's who are presented with the true choice - either to give up their profits and their power to give the planet and people a chance to survive. Or to use their power to make as big profits as possible until the bubble bursts.
It is likely that the very same people who would oppose to any stricter regulations of co2 emissions would also be the ones to protest against stricter housing norms. Thus, creating sustainable societies in tornado-struck areas, and addressing co2 emissions demands the same thing. That some kind of democratic movement curbs the power of capital owners and dares to ignore how their bottom line is affected. I don't expect to read that on Dot Earth, though...
Finally, lets look at the question Revkin began with - is it irresponsible to write about lethal storms without mentioning climate change? My response would be that it is irresponsible not to mention the need to reduce inherent and avoidable human vulnerability to tornadoes in the crowding South, particularly in low-income regions with flimsy housing.
Why not mention both? Is it so hard to think that tornadoes are bad and they will get worse, so we must make sure that people have decent housing? Maybe because accepting the notion that has grown stronger among environmentalists - that climate change is happening now, would require for Revkin to leave his conviction that limiting emissions of greenhouse gases is a long-term challenge. Unfortunately it might already be too late, and if it is not, it is a more pressing issue than rebuilding Alabama. As if that wasn't pressing enough.
The lawn outside my flat is clean. That might not sound impessive, given that my country of residence is Sweden, but if you'd been here during the weekend you would be surprised. Valborg, the 30th of April, is something like the Swedish "Students Day", and it is celebrated with plenty of alcohol, and tons of litter in the streets. Think food left overs, whine bottles, beer cans, plastic plates, underwear, demolished bikes...
It is somehow odd, when you have once been to countries where people do what they can to avoid dirt, to note that for Swedes, partying is very closely related to dirt. The dirtier the better. It is interesting how a Bulgarian who likes cleanliness is perfectly able to keep a place in order, even if he or she is drunk, whereas a Swede loses this ability after the first beer. Once the party is on, normal values do not apply.
Hold on, you say - not only Swedes live in Sweden. It is a little premature, almost racist to blame this mess on the mentality of the Swedes. True enough - almost a third of the inhabitants of this corner of Sweden would not call themselves Swedes, but if you go to celebrate 30th of April, that is not the impression you'll get. You will rather come to believe the myth that all Swedish peopel are tall and blonde, for the people who ravage in the streets are predominantly blond and tall. All well educated with good manners - le charme discret de la bourgeoisie.
It is the class/ethnic dimension is what makes it worth blogging about the fact that the lawn today, two days later is clean. Who do you think cleaned it? Tall, blonde Swedes? Not so. I saw a few women of Asian descent, who surely didn't take part in the celebrations, and have personally met the slighlty disabled guy who takes care of this specific lawn. He is Swedish, but lacks in education and manners. After all, who minds cleaning up after themselves if there is an under-paied sucker from a different social group who does it for you?
And what is wrong with that? After all, it takes all sorts of people to make the world, and isn't it a decent job also to clean streets and markets. Undoubltly so, but I think most Swedish people visiting Bulgaria reacts strongly on the fact that everyone cleaining the streets is a roma citizen, and Bulgaria has a pretty bad reputation about discrimination. It looks like one kind of poeople cleans up after another kind of people, and we feel that it is scandalous. It is.
But what is different in Sweden? Nothing but the language of the street cleaners. And the fact We not only litter the streets, but indulge in polluting them, perversly enjoying the fact that it is someone else's mess to clean up.
