Urlaub!

We are going on a vacation for the next week. We'll be in Amsterdam for two nights at a trendy hotel. Then we are off to a B&B near the town of Den Helder in what is called "North Holland" on the Wadden Sea. Next weekend we'll be staying near Gouda, where we may eat some cheese. We'll have lots of photos of windmills and water-works when we get back.

6

James Hanson is literally a rocket scientist because he works for NASA. In fact he is the director of the Goddard Space Flight Center. He is also one of the world's top climate scientists. Besides having written many papers on the topic, he also has some extra standing because a few years ago he stood up to the Bush administration and refused to let them water down one of his official reports on climate change. In essence becoming a whistleblower on the abuse of science to suit politial ends. So when James Hanson writes a scientific paper, you can be sure that the best minds in the world (who work in this field) have contributed to it or have reviewed it. The fact that he is unknown outside of this field is all you need to know about how screwed we really are. Which is why I call your attention to a recent report of his which calls for reductions in CO2 emissions of 6% every year. Starting now.

Let me just put that in context. Consider that economic growth is roughly equivalent to energy consumption: It takes energy to make the widget, energy to bring the widget to the store, energy for you to drive to the store and buy said widget, etc. All of that energy generates CO2. (Yes, I know that some energy can be generated by windmills and solar panels, but that's not really how we do things, is it? The world does not burn 90,000,000 barrels of oil per day just for fun. That's the real number, by the way.). So while we are all trying to figure out how to make more money in order to buy more stuff (which we call progress), some very smart people are saying that we're going to have to start doing a lot less of that. This is going to require an enormous re-adjustment of our society. In fact, the concept of earning 6% less every year is so unacceptable as to be heresy and is dismissed as the crazy talk of wierdo commies. I am personally not looking forward to using/earning/travelling 6% less every subsequent year.

However, that is exactly what the developing countries were asking of the developed countries at the climate-change talks that were held here in Bonn a few weeks ago. We are not talking Vanuatu or Tobago: the big countries like India and China want the rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by the year 2020 (that's only 8 years from now).  Although this was not a core part of the negotiations, it is an indication of the magnitude of sacrifices everyone is going to have to make very soon. In nine years you must take home half the salary you make today (or you can take home the same salary, but can only buy half the stuff you want).

The amazing thing is that the original Kyoto protocol, signed way back in the early 1990s, called for developed countries to reduce their CO2 emissions by 6% under 1990 levels by (I think) 2000. I don't know what the GDP of Canada was in 1990, but you can bet it was much less than it is today. So we were talking about a relatively small cut in today's terms. If we would have done that then we would be in a much better situation now. But of course nobody wanted to be the first to take a 6% cut in their standard of living back then. So here we are looking at much more drastic belt-tightening.

And if we do not start cutting our emissions right now (as Hanson et al. suggest), then how much of a cut in emissions/energy/economy do you think we will have to make in 9 years? The challenge will simply get bigger and bigger the longer we ignore it. Or we can simply go along and "not believe" in climate change.

Time for Stinkenfuß

And now for some cute picures of little Stinkenfuß* herself.

You underestimate the power of The Force!

Nom, nom,

Benni, Manuella, and Arianne

* = "Stinkyfeet"

63rd in Citylauf Bonn!

I had a great race yesterday. A bit hot, as the Citylauf (lauf means "to run") started at 1PM. It wound through the cobblestone streets, alleys and market-squares of downtown Bonn. In the background is the old church in Bonn, built in the middle ages in the Roman style.

There were not many spectators (aside from the general population sitting at cafés eating sausages, wondering what's up with all the joggers?)

I kept a good pace of about 4:40 per kilometer throughout the race, and the 5 laps slipped by easily (no cramps or soreness). Here I am crossing the finish-line:

46:02 - a very good time!

For the record, I came in 63rd of 198 men, and 7th of 33 in my age-category (men between the ages of 40 and 45, which is a more realistic comparison). I can hardly believe that I ran such a fast time. I don't remember what I usually run a 10-K in, but anything under 50 minutes seems awfully quick. It's almost as if I skipped a lap, but my watch says I did run 5 laps, so I wasn't cheating.

However, I think the course was a bit short. My GPS watch recorded a distance of 9.66 km, so I think a more realistic time (i.e. if it were a full ten kilometers) for me was a bit over 47 minutes. But that is still far better than what I was expecting (54 minutes).

In any case, I recognize that I am fortunate to be able to run like that. If feels great to be able to run up stairs two at a time and to bounce along the trails near my house. I think I will reward myself with a new pair of running shoes.

By the way, I appreciate when people post comments to this blog, as it lets me know that somebody is reading it. I don`t know if what I write about is of much interest to others, but at least you can keep tabs on what I am up to.

Speed Weasel is running today

Clark Kent changed into Superman in a telephone booth (remember those?). By day Spiderman was Peter Parker. While I am no superhero, I do have an alter-ego when I run races. I am Speed Weasel!

Today I will run the in the Citylauf Bonn 10-K race. I am aiming to do it in 54 minutes (which, just in case, also includes 54:59). It is a 2-K loop on cobblestone streets in the old city, so I have to be careful not to twist an ankle.

This is how you do it.

The EU Commission has decided to increase its funding for science by 45%. Wow: I thought that science budgets were only for cutting. We're talking about 80 billion Euros for actual research (not the glorified industrial-process streamlining that seems to be the NRC's focus now).

Dear Conservative party of Canada: This is how you do it, you idiots!

The implications of neglecting science are already being felt in terms of Canada's ability to innovate.  A recent report by the Science, Technology and Innovation Council finds that Canada is slipping as compared to its peers. It's not just about money, of course (there are always lots of reasons), but money is definitely essential.

Atomkraft? Nein Danke

Germany has 18 nuclear reactors and generates 23% of its electrical energy with them. There is however a fairly clearly-defined opposition to their use. The "Atomkraft? Nein Danke" symbol seen here is a fairly common sight. I have seen it as a bumper-sticker or a backyard flag.

Politically speaking, opposition to nuclear power has always come from the Left. The Green party is fairly strong here in Germany and has been in the Bundestag for years. Although always as a minor opposition party, they do have a voice and perhaps a bit of influence. A strange thing happened recently, the significance of which should not be overlooked. As a result of the meltdown of three reactors at Fukushima (which has now rendered the immediate area around the plant radioactive, and thus uninhabitable, for a long time to come), Angela Merkel made an about-face on her government's position. Although she leads a government that is to the right of center, she (unilaterally and without pressure from the opposition) decided to phase out all of Germany's nuclear power plants by 2022. At the same time, Germany plans to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40% over the next 9 years.

That's only ten years to figure out how to run a large modern economy without either nuclear reactors and while burning less fossil fuels. This type of political leadership is unheard of in North America and must truly be commended. It is going to be tough to achieve either goal, and very tough to achieve both. But the prudent thing to do is cut CO2 emissions and move away from nuclear power. It just took some vision and leadership to make it happen. In comparison, Canada's government (with the notable exception of some provinces) has been trying to weasel out of its commitment to the Kyoto Accord since it was signed. And the U.S. has half-heartedly discussed how to implement a cap-and-trade system just so long as it will not cost anyone a cent nor change how many pickup trucks are sold to poseurs.

Personally, I have always been pretty sanguine about the dangers of nuclear energy. Even after the horror at Fukushima, it still is the safest form of energy. When you think about it, it is amazing that only a handful of people died at Fukushima (which is quite remarkable considering that it was hit by a tsunami, a magnitude-9 earthquake, and a couple of buildings blew up). So one can objectively say that nuclear power is much less risky than coal, which we are certain (i.e. no doubt, 100% chance, inevitably) will kill thousands of people this year, as it has every year for centuries. Many of these deaths are from nasty mining accidents in the Chinese hinterland, but many more come from lung cancer brought on by sooty air. In terms of safety, nuclear comes out far ahead.

Where I think nuclear energy falls down is the sheer expense and impracticality of it all. For all its (relative) safety, the Fukushima accident is expected to cost TEPCO about $25 billion.
As long as one has an steady supply of engineers and infinite amounts of money, then all is well with nuclear energy. But as various (all?) U.S. states are currently heavily indebted and are being forced to cut police, fire, teachers, and road-maintenance because they just don't have the money to run society as it was when times were good, how long will it be before there isn't enough money to run nuclear reactors in pristine conditions?

Even Ontario's reactors, some of the safest and best-regulated in the world, end up costing far more than anticipated. Residents of Ontario pay a special fee every month to help pay off the vast sums of money borrowed to build Pickering and Darlington, and then to shut them down for costly  maintenance every few years.

There has got to be a less complicated and less expensive way to boil water (in the reactor) so that I can boil water (in my kettle). Germany is going to show how its done.

Greenwoods B&B in Maastricht

As my previous posting outlined, we spent last weekend in Maastricht. In a lucky turn of events, all the hotels in town were fully booked. That led Christine to look further afield and to discover a great little B&B in the countryside just outside the city. Greenwoods is run by Ruth and Eddy Archer. She is Dutch and he is British. They have a horse, some cats, and a bunch of chickens that we got to feed.

Late day sun, June 24

Christine and Eddy in the garden. Note the cat in the background.

It's a rambling country house with lots of books and magazines piled high on every surface, which was convenient when sitting by the fireplace after a drizzly day walking around the city.

Here is Christine feeding the chickens. The rooster is named "Blackjack".

Holland is always neat. Although it is only a hundred kilometers from here, it feels a bit different. The Dutch are all multi-lingual and almost everyone speaks English. The Dutch language also seems to be a bit less complicated than German, although you can see that many words are the same. In addition, it is easy to find wierd, sweet Belgian beers there too. We are planning to vacation in Holland for the first week of August, so I will report more on the cute wierdness of the Netherlands later.

Here is a photo of a rolling party in Maastricht. It would seem to be a sort of stag-party or office team-building excercise. A company rents out a couple dozen Vespas and everyone scoots around. We later saw a similar number of women on electric mopeds. Apparently helmets are not necessary, and presumably neither is a licence. Does one even have to be sober? Holland is definitely more relaxed.

With an Amstel beer