The Climate in Emergency

A weekly blog on science, news, and ideas related to climate change

Leave a comment

Update on the Candidates

Some months ago, I did a series of posts on the various candidates for present and how each looks from a climate perspective. Since then, the field has changed. Some people have dropped out, others have dropped in, and the Democratic part of the field has focused into a small group of serious possibilities (Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg) and a larger group of long-shot hopefuls.

I figure it’s time to update my coverage. Except where noted, I’m drawing information here from the New York Times–their page on the subject is being updated, however, so if you click on it weeks or months hence you won’t find the same information on it that I did.

The Democrats

Of the Democrats running, I have already covered Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Joe Sestak, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang. This blog continues to back Elizabeth Warren as the best candidate for the climate (it remains neutral on other considerations), though the other front-runners would also be quite good.

Of those I covered, several have already dropped out: Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Wayne Messam, Seth Moulton, Beto O’Rourke, Tim Ryan, and Eric Swalwell.

Richard Ojeda jumped in and then out again without my having a chance to write about him at all.

But there are two new Democratic hopefuls I need to cover.

Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg is a former Republican Mayor of New York, though he’s running for president as a Democrat with the specific, stated goal of defeating Donald Trump. His economic and cultural views suggest those of a centrist Republican–but his focus on gun control and climate change perhaps explain his current party affiliation.

His climate credentials are impressive.

Mr. Bloomberg is a billionaire who has been funneling large amounts of money into various climate-related projects. He has bankrolled the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal and Beyond Carbon campaigns, organized America’s Pledge, a formal effort by cities, states, and businesses to keep our commitments under Paris, and filled the budget shortfall at the UN left when President Trump pulled funding for most climate work there. And more. He is unquestionably a climate champion.

He is, however, having trouble getting support from activists, in part due to disagreements about strategy, and in part because of concerns over whether a pro-business billionaire is electable this cycle. After all, the Democratic Party is otherwise dominated by a progressive movement suspicious of the super-wealthy. It’s not just a case of people complaining that he’s not perfect enough; the worry is that if Mr. Bloomberg pours his money and attention into a doomed campaign for president, he might have less attention to give to climate–and clearly he does not need to be President of the United States to have an impact. He might better serve his cause by supporting a more viable candidate and making sure Democrats take the Senate.

Whether he progresses as a candidate or not, it is good to know he is out there.

Deval Patrick

Is a former governor of Massachusetts, and is running now on a call for unity, rather than on a particular issue or group of issues. As far as climate goes, he is a bit of a paradox; on the one hand, he has real credibility thanks to his leadership on renewable energy while governor, but on the other hand he is a former oil executive. His environmental work is more recent and can be taken as a better indicator of his current thinking. He has tossed around some interesting ideas, such as building manufacturing ups for solar cells and wind turbines in coal country to replace some of the lost jobs (somebody please do that!), though it’s not clear he knows how a US president might accomplish such a thing.

Ultimately, the paradox of Patric is less a matter of uncertainty about him–he was the driving force behind Massachusetts becoming the most energy-efficient state in the US with the eighth-highest solar capacity (pretty good for a small state with long, cloudy winters)–and more about whether he is electable given such an oily political liability?

The size of the Democratic field is a liability. The more energy the party expends fighting internally, the less will be available for the fights that matter–so is the thinking, anyway. And at this point in the process, additional candidates have to prove not just that they are credible as nominees, but also that they are worth the added complication their presence brings. But unlike most of the field, Deval Patrick is not just advocating for climate action, he has already accomplished it–and unlike Mr. Bloomberg, he has accomplished it as an elected official, and as a chief executive at that.

Mr. Patrick bears watching.

The Republicans

Of the Republicans running, I have already discussed Mr. Trump and Mr. Weld. Mr. Sanford, whom I discussed as well, has dropped out. But now we have another contestant for the Republican nomination in Joe Walsh.

Joe Walsh

Joe Walsh is current;y a conservative radio show host. He was also one of the Tea Party Republicans elected the the US House of Representatives in 2010, but he only served one term. In the past he was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump, but has since not only turned against the president but also expressed regret for some of his own anti-Obama language. His primary motivation for running is to deny Mr. Trump, who he describes as completely unfit for office, a second term, but he also wants to reduce the national debt and restrain executive power. He is a more traditionally Republican Republican than the President is.

Mr. Walsh’s score with the League of Conservation Voters is terrible–4%. In fact, so solid is his anti-environmental voting record that one wonders whether those few pro-environment votes were mistakes. Perhaps he was feeling poorly on those days? Not quite himself? But he has recently gone on record as recognizing that climate change is at least “impacted” by human activities and that the Republican Party needs to acknowledge the problem.

Change of heart? Transient illness? Or is at least a pretense of climate sanity becoming a political necessity for Republicans?

Big Picture

The big picture has not changed much since the last time I wrote on these topics. Donald Trump is still the candidate to beat–who must be beaten if we are to have a chance for the planet–and his most serious opponent will almost certainly be one of the four Democrats currently polling at the head of the pack. It’s possible that one or more of the Republican challengers will run as an independent and that they could complicate the race in interesting ways.

There is an outside possibility that either Mr. Bloomberg or Mr. Patrick could change the picture, if either can gain enough traction.

Leave a comment

Thanksgiving Day

I’m posting my Thanksgiving post a little early thus year, re-edited in places just to keep it fresh.

“It’s that time of the year again,” warns a cynical-sounding blogger, “when warmists try to link Thanksgiving and climate change.”

Nice rhetorical trick, isn’t it? Discrediting us by saying that we’ll even link climate change to Thanksgiving? The truth, of course, is that anything in human life can be linked to climate change, because everything we experience depends on climate somehow. It’s in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the wind that may be gentle or catastrophic as occasion allows….Climate is already everywhere, and as it changes, so must everything else.

We “warmists” didn’t make that part up. It’s just physics.

But yes, ’tis the season to write holiday-themed posts. Most writers seem to cluster around one of two main narratives: Thanksgiving as an opportunity to talk about climate change and agriculture (as in turkeys could get more expensive as feed prices rise because of recurrent drought); and Thanksgiving as an opportunity to talk about climate communication (as in how to talk with your climate-skeptic relatives). These are excellent points and I’m not going to try to make them all over again.

Instead, I want to talk about gratitude. I want to talk about abundance.

The Reason for the Season

I should acknowledge, before we get started, that American Thanksgiving itself has become controversial in certain circles in recent years as recognition spreads that the story of the “first Thanksgiving” is more or less a lie. The idea is that celebrating the Pilgrim’s supposed friendship with the “Indians” is an example of both ignorance and imperialism. I agree–except that’s not what Thanksgiving is about.

Here is a link to the text of the proclamation Abraham Lincoln used to make Thanksgiving an annual national holiday. Before that, presidents had occasionally declared days of thanksgiving, as had various colonist communities and various European communities before them. Days of thanksgiving, like moments of silence in our time, were simply something people had occasionally–the nascent colony that would become Massachusetts had one, but they hardly “owned the brand,” so to speak. Only when Lincoln created an annual Thanksgiving did the United States begin celebrating the holiday in its modern sense. And you’ll notice that Lincoln (actually Secretary Seward, who wrote the text) makes no mention of “Pilgrims and Indians” at all.

My guess is that the “story of the first Thanksgiving” was an attempt to shoehorn a bit of history and patriotism in for the benefit of school children, but it had nothing to do with the creation of the holiday, nor has it ever been a feature of any of the Thanksgiving celebrations I’ve been part of for the almost 40 years of Novembers I can remember.

Thanksgiving is about gratitude, not history (let alone psuedohistory).

The Meaning of the Reason

Have you ever thought it strange that we give thanks by eating a lot? If anything, American Thanksgiving sometimes seems more a celebration of greed and gluttony, with a perfunctory discussion of life’s blessings thrown in among the other topics at the table. But gratitude is fundamentally a reaction, not an action–it is very difficult to be grateful as an act of will. The best we can normally do is remind ourselves of what we have to be grateful for, and surrounding ourselves with an abundance of food is a good way to start.

What is abundance? An online dictionary provides the definition “a large amount of something,” but that’s not quite it. “Abundance of dirty dishes” sounds, at best, sarcastic, if not outright ludicrous. And while there might indeed be a large amount of sand in the Sahara, few people would describe it as abundant sand, because, really, who cares how much sand it has?

To really count as abundant, something must be a) what we want, and b) what we aren’t worried of running out of.

The Thanksgiving table qualifies. You can eat as much as you want, no holds barred, and there will be left-overs. The Thanksgiving table is not infinite, it is not literally inexhaustible, but it has an almost magical quality of feeling that way. It is precisely that illusion that allows the food to symbolize all the other good things in our lives, everything for which we might be grateful.

The Limitations of the Season

Of course, there is no such thing as a truly infinite resource; use enough of anything for long enough and eventually you will run out. Even “renewable” resources are only sustainable if you use them slowly enough that they can replenish themselves. We know from sad experience that it is indeed possible to run completely out of precious things that once seemed all but limitless–passenger pigeons, for example. And in fact we are running out of pretty much everything we need for life and everything that gives life beauty and meaning.

For many of us, “running out” is a pretty abstract notion. Hunger and poverty certainly exist, but they are a distribution problem, for the most part, not a supply problem; there are more overweight than underweight humans right now. Ever more efficient resource extraction is, for the time being, largely masking the growing depth of the crisis–but make no mistake, the crisis is upon us. It’s not a problem of the future but of the here and now.

Is consumption really the best way to celebrate anything right now?

Thanksgiving Yet to Come

Thanksgiving depends on the illusion of an infinite table, an inexhaustible shared resource. We got into our current environmental mess by collectively acting as though the world were an inexhaustible resource for real. Quite obviously, we have to stop such irrational and selfish behavior right away.

Does that mean we need to stop celebrating Thanksgiving?


First of all, a literal abundance of food had never been the point of the holiday; it’s not just an occasion of gluttony, the groaning table is supposed to be a metaphor for spiritual abundance. Eating a lot is a means, not an end. Second, because abundance is a feeling, not an amount, it’s possible to create that feeling of abundance on a sharply limited budget–as anyone knows who’s ever had to host Thanksgiving dinner without a lot of money.

Thanksgiving Day can be not just a reminder of all the natural richness we’re in the process of losing, but also an example of how we might regain some of that richness for our children and children’s children–and do it without feeling deprived ourselves.

Thanksgiving on a budget works as long as it’s possible for all the guests to enjoy the meal without worrying that they won’t get enough–skilled hosts accomplish it by paying close attention to what the guests really need while also staying strictly within their own limitations. They do it by putting what they have to the best possible use and by not wasting anything–including not wasting resources on things that don’t really add much to the celebration. We can do the same thing as a species.

We have to find a way to live within our ecological means–the first step is to get off fossil fuel–but we can work with what we have so skillfully that what we have feels like more than enough. By staying within a budget we can stop worrying about running out, and thus achieve a true, if paradoxical, abundance. Then the planet will have a chance to heal. The biosphere will grow again. And it is possible, just possible, that our descendants will live to see a more bountiful feast than we will.

And that will truly be something to be thankful for.


Climate Change and Medicine

As some of you know, my family has had altogether too much reliance on the healthcare system of late, prompting me to wonder about healthcare and climate change.

I have written before about some of the ways that climate change threatens public health (see here and here and here), but what about ways that healthcare itself threatens the climate? I had never heard the issue raised, and I’d noticed that medicine seems to be one area in which even environmentalists don’t stop to consider carbon footprints. Even I will drive to a medical appointment, and hospitals are obviously intensive users of energy.

Is medicine an area that just has to be bad for the planet? And, if so, does that mean that in the carbon-neutral future that is coming (remember; “unsustainable” means “going to stop eventually, one way or another”) will our standards of healthcare necessarily suffer?

The short answer is no, probably not.

Carbon-footprinting Healthcare

What does healthcare cost the planet in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? Figures seem to vary depending on the source. In the course of researching this article, I have seen healthcare’s share of the US carbon footprint quoted as 7%, 10%, or other numbers, for example. Most likely, the difference is due to variations in how the footprints were calculated–as I’ve explained before, there is more than one right way to calculate any footprint, and carbon footprint analysis is at its most useful when multiple footprints are calculated the same way and compared.

It does appear that the footprint of healthcare varies from one country to another, sometimes dramatically, though figuring out the exact nature of the variation is difficult. Consider that countries vary dramatically in their total carbon footprint, their population sizes, their ability to provide healthcare to their population, and their healthcare outcomes. It’s not immediately obvious how to make a fair comparison.

But some countries are examining their healthcare footprints with an eye towards improvement. An article about the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) explored that country’s healthcare-related emissions in some detail.

The NHS as a whole accounts for 4% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Of that 4%:

  • Patient and staff travel accounts for 16%
  • Pharmaceuticals account for 20%
  • Other procured goods and services, including food and medical devices, account for 30%

So, just to be clear, that means 0.8% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions are related to the production of pharmaceuticals, a small figure to be sure, but fairly impressive for a single industry.

Of course, 16+20+30 doesn’t equal a hundred. The article did not explain the remaining 34%, but my guess is that much of it is related to electricity and heating fuel used by hospitals and other facilities.

It’s not clear to me how a similar breakdown might look in a different country, but it seems likely that countries that are broadly similar economically and provide a broadly similar standard of medical care will also have similar emissions sources, even if the total size of the footprints are different.

Let’s see if we can break some of these figures down even further.

Pharmaceutical Production

Since pharmaceuticals account for about a fifth of the UK’s healthcare-related emissions, it’s important to understand where those emissions come from. How does the production and sale of a drug emit greenhouse gasses?

The short answer is I have not been able to find out. Since mass-produced drugs are made in factories, I suspect most of the emissions come from simply running the factories–mostly electricity and refrigerant (for both air conditioning and any stages of production that require chilling), plus fuel, if heating is not electric. Transportation of ingredients and finished products is probably also important, as is the production of plastic for packaging. But it would be useful to know details, since that would enable us to determine what emissions are truly excessive–then we could set reasonable expectations for pharmaceutical factories.

One research team has least approached the question by looking at the carbon footprints of individual drug companies. The group’s focus appeared to be American, but the companies studied are mostly transnational. The team used figures from the few pharmaceutical companies that report their greenhouse gas emissions to calculate annual emissions per million dollars of revenue for each company and for an industry average. They came up with 48.55 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per million dollars of revenue–almost half again the figure for the auto industry.

Now, since the auto industry involves more millions of dollars than the pharmaceutical industry does, its total footprint is still larger (plus cars produce their own emissions post-production and pills don’t), but it’s still a startling figure.

Just as startling is the fact that while the pharmaceutical industry as a whole needs to radically shrink its emissions in order to meet Paris targets, some companies have been working on shrinking and have met their Paris goals already–and these are among the most successful companies, namely Johnson & Johnson, Amgen inc., and Roche Holding AG. It appears the less-green companies have no excuse for not cutting back.

Unfortunately, the numbers don’t tell us as much as they might. Some companies, such as Bayer, produce more than just pharmaceuticals and don’t break down their reported emissions in a way that would let us see what the figures for their pharmaceuticals alone really are. While we can be assured that Bayer really does have a large carbon footprint, we can’t put that number in context. We can’t fairly compare companies if we don’t even know which industries the numbers refer to.

And none of this answers my original question.


Articles on what hospitals can do to reduce their carbon footprints are fairly easy to find, and their content should sound fairly familiar to anyone interested in sustainability (carpool to work, cut back on meat, etc.). Most don’t provide information on what hospital-related emissions actually are.

More interesting is a study comparing greenhouse gas emissions from specific operating rooms in different countries. The big surprise is that anesthesia is a major factor; anesthetics are greenhouse gasses, and they vary in the strength of their greenhouse potential. Desflurane has between 5 and 18 times the global warming potential of its competitors, yet it is a favored choice in some operating rooms. The surgical suits studied in Vancouver and Minnesota both use a lot of desflurane, so anesthesia accounts for over half their carbon footprint, verses less than 5% of the footprint of surgery at Oxford. The total CO2e of the North American sites is actually ten times that of the UK sites, largely because of desflurane.

Another detail that caught my eye is that heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning together account for a much higher proportion of energy use for operating rooms than for other hospital facilities because building standards for operating rooms are different–though the article didn’t explain why. Does energy inefficiency somehow improve patient care? It’s possible it does in some indirect way.

What I want to know–and have been unable to find out so far–is how the footprints of hospitals compare to those of other centers of human activity. No matter what else it is, a hospital is a facility where large numbers of people live and eat together, and where other people come to work. Many of its emissions sources should therefore be similar to what one would find at a university with on-campus housing. Is the footprint of a hospital larger than that of a school of similar size? If it is, how much is waste and how much is just a necessary part of providing excellent healthcare?


While transportation is a factor in the carbon footprint of anything healthcare facilities must move, including food, pharmaceuticals, and waste, the article I linked to earlier counted “transportation” as only involving the movement of people. In many cases, these movements of people are the same as for any other employer–staff coming to work and patients coming in for scheduled treatment, mostly by car. As with any other employer, the quickest way to minimize these emissions may be to minimize the transportation itself–encouraging car-pooling among staff, for example.

But the transportation category also includes the use of ambulances. These are not efficient machines. Gas mileage varies, depending on various factors, but I checked a number of sources, and it looks like the figures are clustering around 10 miles per gallon for both ground-based ambulances and helicopters (that’s diesel fuel for ambulances and either high-grade gasoline or kerosene–jet fuel–for helicopters). And the problem is that while the engines could perhaps be made more efficient, their use can’t be minimized without compromising (or at least radically changing) care.

So what portion of of the healthcare carbon footprint is emergency transport?

I could not find an article that simply answered that question. I could find one that gave a per-capita figure for emissions of ground-based ambulance service in Australia: it’s 0.003 metric tonnes CO2e.

I then looked up the total annual per capita carbon emissions for Australia (20.58 metric tonnes CO2e) and the proportion of Australia’s total carbon footprint that is attributable to healthcare (7%). Some arithmetic reveals that Australia’s per capita healthcare-related emissions are roughly 1.44 metric tonnes CO2e per year, just 0.2% of which is attributable to ground-based ambulance rides. The figure for other first-world countries is likely similar.

Air ambulances–helicopters–are a different story, but one I can’t really tell. The same article that gave me the ground-based figure also said that air ambulances account for almost 200 times the emissions that ground does. Unfortunately, the article did not make clear whether that is a comparison between air and ground services as a whole, or per-trip figures, or per-kilometer figures, or something else. Logic suggests it can’t be all-of-the-above. But since Australia has large areas that are sparsely settled, it likely uses air ambulances much more extensively than, say, the UK does. Its helicopter-based emissions are likely less comparable to that of other countries than their ground-based ambulance figures are.

What we can say is that whether the emissions of ground-based ambulances can be a substantially reduced or not, they are a drop in the bucket. Emergency helicopters may be a more important contributor, however, at least in some countries.

Post-petroleum Healthcare

While many of the articles I found during research were aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of healthcare, my focus, as I mentioned, is a little different. Shrinking footprints is important, of course, but neither I nor most of my readers are in a position to shrink healthcare footprints directly. What are we supposed to do, boycott our own medical care in protest? No, our job here is to support (and demand!) climate-friendly political leadership.

But I want to know what we can look forward to. What will healthcare in a carbon-neutral society look like? Do we have to think about the ethics of a trade-off, restricting healthcare for the good of the rest of the world, or is such a conflict really a non-issue?

What We Know

What do all the facts and figures I’ve collected suggest?

First of all, healthcare as a whole tends to be about 10% of each country’s total carbon footprint or less. That means most countries could make substantial progress towards carbon neutrality without touching healthcare at all. But there are reasons to believe healthcare footprints can shrink without changing the standard of care.

  • A substantial source of emissions must be electricity use by healthcare facilities. Switching the electricity grid to renewables will therefore automatically shrink the healthcare footprint even if the facilities themselves don’t change.
  • Many healthcare-related emissions types are the same as for similarly-sized facilities in other industries, and can therefore be reduced in the same way: buildings can be better-insulated; lights can be switched to LEDs; unused equipment can be turned off; waste can be minimized; food (in hospitals) can be sourced locally and made largely vegetarian; and so on.
  • Many healthcare-specific emissions types can shrink: operating rooms can switch away from desflurane; the footprint of pharmaceutical production can be reduced (as evidenced by Johnson & Johnson); and ground-based ambulances can run on biodiesel.

There is only one area where I suspect major changes might need to be made; air ambulances could use biofuels, too, but since these are likely to be more expensive than petrofuels, fuel-intensive operations, like Australia’s helicopters, might be cost-prohibitive. Various structural changes to the system might be necessary to maintain the standard of care.

That’s OK. Structural changes can be made.

Possible Complications

All of the above suggests that healthcare could stay basically the same and become carbon neutral–but that’s not true because a carbon neutral society will have to change in ways that will in turn influence healthcare. Exactly what these changes might be is impossible to predict, but we can do a little educated speculation.

Improved Health

We know that modern environmental problems cast a healthcare shadow, both directly and indirectly. From pollution, to extreme weather, to increased violence, to mental health concerns, the environmental crisis is bad for people. And some things that are also bad for people, such as a sedentary (automobile-based) lifestyle and a diet rich in animal products, exacerbate the crisis further. This not to say that we’re sicker now than our pre-industrial ancestors were–we’re not–but most of the factors that have improved our health (antibiotics, vaccines, public sanitation) should not be threatened by carbon neutrality.

So a carbon-neutral world should see its healthcare needs drop, thus further shrinking the healthcare footprint.

An Altered Economy

Industrialization makes it possible to concentrate large numbers of people in one place; the cities of the past were smaller, sometimes much smaller, than those of today. Since carbon neutrality is likely to make fuel very expensive, the long-distance transportation of food and other goods will likely become economically nonviable–urban populations will therefore have to shrink. Even if carbon-neutral big cities prove to be possible, we have to face the fact that most of the world’s major cities are going to be lost to climate change, even if we do achieve carbon neutrality soon (remember atmospheric lag); many coastal cities will drown, while many inland cities will run out of water in droughts or simply burn. Some cities will simply become too hot to live in.

So the future will likely have smaller and more spread-out population centers than we have today, a change which will have a huge impact on the economics of hospitals. Consider that big hospitals, the ones that can use economies of scale to offer world-class care, tend to be in or near big population centers–that’s where the patients are. Paying for rural healthcare is hard. It’s going to get harder when patients can’t afford to travel much.

Smaller Population

There are those who disagree with me on this, but I hold that carbon neutrality will require a smaller human population, at least over the long-term. Hopefully we can make the change through attrition alone. But fewer people also means reduced healthcare needs, further reducing the carbon footprint of care–and making it harder to pay for.

The Vision

Earlier this year, I published a novel set in a post-petroleum society. While healthcare as such is not covered in the novel, in the course of world-building I did think about how healthcare in the future might work. Here are some of the ideas I came up with.

  • Because populations are smaller and more spread-out, doctors, dentists, psychotherapists, and other such professionals travel. Rather than making house calls, they set up temporary offices, either in tents at the weekly market or, for those who need specialized equipment, in clinics that are shared with other traveling professionals. For example,everybody in a small town might have their semi-annual dental cleaning and check-up the same month, when the dentist and a team of hygienists visit. The next month, some of those people will return to the same office, because now it’s the office of an orthodontist or an oral surgeon.
  • Each small town will have a tiny clinic that has space for traveling professionals and an emergency center, a birthing center, and perhaps a dozen or so beds for in-patient treatment. On good days these clinics will be mostly empty. The idea is to minimize travel for patients, most whom will now live within two or three miles of basic medical services.
  • Large, full-service hospitals will exist for specialized services. These will function as small cities, with food production, machine shops, and staff and visitor housing all on site. Most patients will have traveled long distances to get to the hospital after having exhausted the capacity of local options.
  • Emergency transportation exists and is powered by biofuels. It is minimized by the use of online consultation; techs working either in the local clinic or, in some cases, in the patient’s home, can collect diagnostic data and send it to teams of relevant experts elsewhere. Some treatments can also be given by techs, nurses, general practitioners, and even robots working at the direction of experts who are far away (usually in the major hospitals).
  • In some cases air transport is accomplished, not by helicopters, but by semi-autonomous drones. The drone carries a paramedic and relevant equipment to the patient’s location, where the paramedic stabilizes the patient and, if necessary, loads the patient into the drone. The drone flies autonomously to the nearest medical facility, adjusting the flow of medication or oxygen on the way if necessary. Its onboard AI can also talk to the patient and record messages. Meanwhile, the paramedic hires a horse-drawn cab to get back to the clinic. Because the drone is only carrying a single human being at a time, it can be much smaller and use much less energy than a helicopter, which must carry a pilot and a medical team in addition to the patient.

All of the above is, of course, speculation on my part. But informed speculation can be useful; it makes the future seem a good deal less scary.

Leave a comment

If I Had a Dollar For….

October was, in many ways, a bad month for climate news, with much of California being on fire. Again. But here at Climate in Emergency, there was a small note of encouragement–November was the second-busiest this blog has ever had, and the third month running that broke 300 visitors.

300 visitors might not seem very much, in the grand scheme of things (actually, “views” are always somewhat higher and have been close to 400 for each of the past three months), but it means I’m averaging over ten visitors per day–or more than 70 visitors per post.

“If I had a dollar for….” is a tried-and-true way of expressing the scale of something. If I had a dollar for every gray hair I’ve gotten in recent years, I’d be rich–but if I had a dollar instead for every hair that isn’t gray yet, I’d be even richer. If I had a dollar for every visit to my blog, I could make a student loan payment. You know how it goes.

Except nobody is going to pay me for having gray hair. So let’s talk about funding, just for a minute.

Always Free, But….

This blog will always be free to read, but it’s not free to write. It costs me time that I could otherwise dedicate to paid work. How much time varies, but the posts that depend on a lot of research run me about six to ten hours. I also have plans to expand this project that I literally can’t afford to put into practice because they would require too much time.

I’ve had a “donate” button on my blog for a long time, but until recently readership was too low for me to expect much of anything from that button. That’s changing. It’s getting to the point where even a small donation from every reader would add up to enough to make a difference for me–and for this blog.

And maybe for the planet.

The Vision

The vision is for this website to become a major platform for climate-related news and information. This blog will continue, with its mix of news, science, commentary, and personal musings, but you’ll also be able to come here for a curated list of links to climate-related news and articles on other sites and information on calls for political action and activism. You’ll be able to see who is doing what in this important fight, and who needs your help.

To make all that happen, I’ll need to budget about 16-20 hours per week, mostly for research. That’s about twice the time I can afford to donate, so I’m looking at raising about $150 per week to cover the difference.

The Numbers

WordPress tells me I’m getting just over 70 visitors per week. It’s hard to know what that actually means; I might have 70 people who read every post, or 60 of those visitors might be electronic passers-by who don’t come back. Or something in the middle. I also have 81 followers, but I am unclear as to how many of them are active readers or whether their reading is recorded in the site visitation stats.

But clearly I have at least a few dozen regular readers, and I could have over a hundred, plus some number of curious people who just drop in occasionally. I want to see those numbers increase, and I’m taking steps in that direction. The point is that if you’re reading these words, you’re part of a small but growing crowd. If you find the work I do valuable and would like to buy me a coffee now and then (I don’t actually drink coffee, but you get the point), you’re not alone.

If everybody who’d like to kick in for the occasional coffee clicks on that donate button, this blog will grow right before your eyes.

What’s at Stake

President Trump just initiated the process of taking the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement. It’s a process that takes a certain amount of time and can be cancelled at any point–specifically, if Mr. Trump is re-elected, we’ll be out of Paris. If someone else is elected instead, the new president can put us back in.

Whether the world can fight climate change effectively without the help of the US is doubtful.

Between now and the election, American voters will see a vast amount of propaganda, much of it on social media, much of it subtle, to the effect that voting Democrat is pointless or evil, that the problems we face can best be solved with more anti-environmentalist nationalism, and that climate change is either a hoax or irrelevant. Those will be lies bought and paid for by moneyed interests, mostly people with huge fossil fuel investments. We have to combat those lies. We have to get the truth out and keep it out in front of voters’ eyes all the time.

The truth is that no matter what other issues matter to you, climate change will make them worse. The truth is that unless the United States has a climate-friendly President AND Congress, this coming cycle we will likely lose this thing. The truth is that if everyone in the United States who believes climate is important votes like it next year, we will have a chance.

People are dying. They die in wildfires and hurricanes.  They die in wars over dwindling resources. They die in boats or refugee caravans trying to escape farms that won’t produce anymore or crime and chaos made worse by climate-related woes. We have to fight back.

And the way I can fight back is by writing. But I can’t do it alone.