Savings made by lifestyle choices show how much carbon dioxide (CO2) is being removed from the atmosphere for each of the 16 categories shown on the graph. If it serves your purpose, you may want to look at the list and see how each of your life choices compares in terms of CO2 saved. I know I did a quick inventory and compared my wife and me to the items displayed on the graph.

These are my conclusions about our lifestyle choices and reducing our CO2 output:

• We are not living car-free. We use it far less and try to take public transit when going into Toronto. When we do use the car we make each trip fulfill multiple tasks.
• Our car is a hybrid, not an electric one. Before we moved to Oakville, our apartment had no EV charge stations. The place we live in now does and when we get our next vehicle we will look at either a hybrid plug-in or pure EV.
• We are using the regional GO train to go to Toronto and accessing mass transit to go to medical appointments and to meet friends.
• The building we live in is powered by a heat pump. Our apartment uses a heat pump.
• Our kitchen appliances are all new energy-efficient models.
• The power provider to the building is delivering green electricity.
• In our recent move, we have downsized the space in which we live. At the same time, we have decluttered, repurposed and given away technology we no longer are using rather than trash or recycle it.
• After our dog, Maya died, two years ago in August, we no longer have plans to get another pet.
• We haven’t been on an airplane since December 2022. It was our first trip in three years by airplane. I must confess we have a wedding in the Rocky Mountains this summer and will have to fly to get there. For next winter we would like to go to Southern Spain for a month next winter to somewhere sunny and warm.
• We eat less meat, especially red meat, but cannot claim to be leaning toward a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, although we are eating far smaller portions than ever before. Maybe smaller portions mean less of a carbon footprint.
• We don’t throw out old clothes but clean them and give them away.
• We reuse and recycle almost everything that comes through the front door including newspaper, plastic, aluminum, paper products, and kitchen organic waste.
• We shop locally having moved to a place with a grocery and drugstore next door.

I don’t consider myself low-carbon virtuous although I aspire to attain a low-carbon lifestyle whenever possible.

My wife and I’s personal vice is an addiction to reading things in print, which means we subscribe to two daily newspapers and a weekly news magazine. One hopes the paper used is recycled. I know we recycle all of it after reading.

About other reading materials, we stopped buying hardcover books some time ago and now only get e-books.

Our one other vice is using Amazon for stuff unavailable at local shops.

Making lifestyle choices based on our carbon footprint is not easy. That’s because reducing personal carbon footprints is hard work. What we have done is the bare bones because we both are retired and at a stage in life where stuff no longer defines us. For others, however, getting the carbon footprint smaller is much harder.

I’ll give you an example of carbon footprint challenges. My daughter and son-in-law bought a more than 100-year-old home in Toronto two years ago. It needed upgrading of the insulation, windows, doors, heating, cooling, and more. These were significant investments even though the federal government had launched an energy efficiency grant and low-interest loan program to help with energy efficiency upgrades for residential homeowners. One challenge of being dependent on government incentives like these is that you have to do a lot of paperwork, wait for approvals, and pay out-of-pocket before you get reimbursed. That can put a lot of stress on a family budget.

Other family considerations when making decarbonizing decisions include visits. Today, virtual visits have become more common after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. These online visits are not the same as seeing family in person. The difference between them has psychological consequences. Going for a visit often requires the use of a car, particularly if public transit requires multiple transfers and a significant amount of extra time.

What was not on the list of the 16 CO2-saving lifestyle choices that surprised me was carbon savings from planting a food garden. Victory gardens were planted during World War 2 because of food shortages. The tradition of having a small vegetable patch, or a fruit tree in the backyard continues. Another confession: we have a grapefruit tree in our apartment with a near-full-size grapefruit hanging off a branch.

Does planting a vegetable garden reduce our CO2 footprint? Apparently not. It turns out it is an urban myth. A January 22, 2024 article in the journal Nature Cities, provides evidence that shows CO2 contributions from urban agriculture are six times greater than that produced by conventional farms or greenhouse operations.

Only tomatoes and peppers when grown in backyards and on balconies can help reduce CO2 footprints. There is good news. Urban vegetable growers love tomatoes. They constitute 25% of what we plant in our city backyards and on balconies. For urban gardeners who love tomatoes, if you add composted organics and use rainwater you can reduce your carbon footprint even more.

Sheldon went home and worked on the mathematics for launches and recoveries, sent his calculations by mail to NASA and waited for a response. None arrived so his father drove the family from their East Texas home to Houston and NASA headquarters to support his son. Sheldon with persistence was able to meet with the same NASA official who had visited his class and walked him through the math. The NASA official was both puzzled and impressed. In the last scene of the sitcom, years later, we see Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, reading Sheldon’s notes from his NASA visit and hiding them in a desk drawer. I thought this story would be a good preamble to what follows.

NASA has been developing space technology since its founding back in the Eisenhower administration of the late 1950s. Here we are, more than 70 years later and NASA rockets can take off but cannot land.

The Space Launch System (SLS), NASA’s replacement for the Saturn V of the Apollo Program era, is a throwaway rocket. The European Space Agency (ESA) which has been in the space launch business for many decades and is ready to assemble its latest “state-of-the-art” launcher, the Ariane 6, is also a throwaway. Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, and the first country to launch a satellite into space, recently launched the Angara A5, its latest heavy-lift launcher. Guess what? It’s a throwaway too. Launch systems are expensive. They waste resources when they cannot be reused. What’s wrong with this picture?

Two private companies, SpaceX and Rocket Lab have been proving that reusability is feasible. Soon others will join them, companies like Blue Origin with its current suborbital reusable rocket, New Shepard, and the soon-to-be-launched New Glenn which will be fully reusable. Even the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a company NASA has relied on for launchers for decades, is working on a reusable launcher after just retiring its last Delta IV. ULA’s successor, the Vulcan Centaur will have recoverable components when it begins to fly.

NASA did go down the reusability track after Apollo with the Space Shuttle. It was supposed to be a low-cost way of going to space with quick turnarounds. The design was futuristic with the spacecraft looking like an airplane. To fly it required mounting it on the side of a non-reusable fuel tank with two solid rocket boosters attached. This was a major design flaw that exposed the shuttle to falling launch debris, a persistent danger. NASA lost 14 astronauts and two Space Shuttles during the 30 years of the program. Refurbishment remained expensive and the best turnaround between flights was 78 days.

Reusability remains a desirable goal for national space programs including:

• The European Space Agency (ESA) which has yet to announce a reusable rocket timetable while developing components that can eventually lead to one. An engine prototype was tested last year.
• Russia’s Roscosmos which has boasted it will soon have a reusable rocket that will be cheaper to fly than the Falcon 9. We’ll see.
• China’s space agency with plans for a Long March rocket to be reusable. The earliest possibility of flying a reusable first stage could happen in 2025 or 2026.
• Japan’s space agency, JAXA, which has targeted 2030 for its first reusable.
• India’s ISRO with reusability in its plans
• And finally, South Korea.

Learning from the Space Shuttle design problem made NASA go back to the stacked design of the Saturn V era. That’s why the SLS eerily resembles its predecessor. But why reusability hasn’t been built into the technology for the first stage boggles my mind.

The Artemis 1 mission tested the SLS first stage and rocket boosters, the ICPS cryogenic propulsion stage, and the Orion capsule. The total cost of this throwaway was US $1.3 billion including the $107 million for the solid-state boosters leftover from the Shuttle Program.

The cost for subsequent Artemis missions has ballooned. Artemis 2 is scheduled for the fall of 2025 to fly four astronauts around the Moon. Artemis 3 will likely happen later than the 2026 date, probably 2027 or 2028. Each Artemis Program mission in current dollars comes with a $2.2 billion price tag just for the throwaway SLS rocket and its components. The Orion reusable spacecraft costs $1 billion. The ESA-built service module, a throwaway, costs $300 million. Ground system support is currently estimated to cost over $500 million per flight.

Meanwhile, NASA’s legacy technology built for reusability is now being shared with private companies. It is NASA technology adopted by SpaceX that allows Falcon 9 first stages to land with precision. Other design elements in the Falcon 9 are legacy NASA innovations as well. SpaceX has also been perfecting first-stage reusability to the point where the latest two Falcon 9 first stages have been flown 20 times and turnaround for reuse is taking as little as 21 days. To top it off it is NASA contracts and payments to SpaceX that have made it possible to fund much of its Falcon, Dragon and Starship development. Today, NASA launches crews to the multinational International Space Station (ISS) using Falcon 9 rockets and reusable Dragon spacecraft.

Another NASA-contracted company, Boeing, plans to join the space reusability fraternity with its Starliner spacecraft. Boeing describes the technology as 20th-century proven with 21st-century innovations. It will ride a ULA Atlas 5 non-reusable rocket to get to orbit.

When NASA stopped flying the Space Shuttle it had created the program to encourage commercial spacecraft development. Several companies were shortlisted. Boeing got the lion’s share of the money, $4.3 billion. SpaceX was given $2.5 billion. Today SpaceX flies four Dragon spacecraft on missions to the ISS as well as for private companies. It has 10 missions to ISS under its belt.

Boeing is four years late in its development of the Starliner and lists an inventory of three although only two will be operational for crewed missions to the ISS. It has flown two uncrewed missions over the last two years. The first had software issues and never made it to the ISS. The second got there. Hopefully, next week’s first crewed mission will meet expectations.

We may soon witness full reusability with the SpaceX Starship and Super Heavy booster. Its success will be a breakthrough milestone for future space exploration and a lunar and eventual Martian presence. Because NASA has plans with its Artemis Program to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon and calls this a stepping stone on the way to Mars.

The only way NASA’s ambition will be realized is with reusability. Otherwise, the dream is unaffordable. Designs like the SLS won’t cut it to support long-term lunar and Martian ambitions. These missions need fully reusable parts and the way NASA is going currently, the only thing that will be reusable will be its name painted on the side of the rockets and spacecraft that will fulfil the dream.

What are these risks? They include storms, floods, fires, heatwaves, rising sea levels and other extreme climate events accompanying rising atmospheric temperatures.

That $25 trillion bill doesn’t include the cost of retrofits and renovation to legacy homes to make them climate resilient and livable under changing conditions.

An American dream is to own a home overlooking a beautiful beach and water. If you watch HGTV’s “House Hunters” you certainly can see the attraction to pay a premium price for living by the ocean or a lake. Climate scientists, however, forecast that homes on the seashore will be vulnerable to rising sea levels, extreme weather events, flooding, and storm surges.

If you know Florida, it is extremely flat. Much of South Florida is only a few metres above sea level even when you go well inland. This area of the state will see a sea level rise of 0.9 metres (3 feet) by 2060 based on current trends. That number will likely double by 2100.

The Florida government estimates that 934,000 homes in South Florida will be at risk of being lost. The state has developed planning tools and studies but none of the actions taken by it or local municipalities is sufficient to stop an ocean inundation. No South Florida home by a beach or on nearby low-lying land will survive.

The aforementioned $25 trillion bill for Americans compounds many more trillions when we look at homes across the rest of the planet.

For example, China faces its multi-trillion-dollar challenge in the Pearl River Delta, near Hong Kong. This is Guangdong Province, home to 127 million Chinese. It is the economic engine of China and vulnerable to the same extreme conditions South Florida will experience. The Pearl River Delta includes the megacities of Guangzhou and Shenzhen. In the past month, both experienced severe flooding from one extreme precipitation event losing thousands of homes.

Projected sea level rise for the Pearl River Delta is expected to be 1 metre (3.3 feet) by 2100. The Chinese have been far more aggressive than South Florida’s government in hardening the infrastructure of the province to sea level rise and extreme weather risks. The investment may still not be enough to save millions of homes.

Globally, the economic toll of extreme weather and climate-change-related events continues to grow. China’s 2023 losses from torrential rains, landslides, hailstorms and typhoons in just nine months amounted to $42 billion. Africa from 1970 to 2021 has seen losses amounting to $43 billion. The European Union has reported its losses for the same period at $562 billion. South America’s hit $115.2 billion. By far the largest amount in losses, however, were recorded in North and Central America including the Caribbean nations reaching $2 trillion.

Somewhere in these multi-billion and trillion-dollar numbers, homeowners figure in. The World Bank, in its annual economic calculations for losses noted recently that it does not directly quantify homeowner and property value loss in its climate data. One study, however, covering a ten-year period ending in 2019 that looked at climate-related economic costs totalling $1.5 trillion, attempted to measure homeowner losses based on insurance claims and lost property value estimates.

At some point, homes that face heightened climate risk will become liabilities for private insurers to underwrite. Extreme weather claims will no longer be insurable in South Florida. Similar predictions in other jurisdictions include a Bank of England estimate that by 2050, 7% of UK homes will be uninsurable, and in Australia, the independent environmental advisory body, the Climate Council has forecasted one in 25 homes will turn the country into “an uninsurable nation.”

For private insurers still writing policies for homeowners in places like South Florida, future claims for climate events will likely be treated as “secondary perils” making them equivalent to “acts of God.” Claims will be denied. And as private insurers give up issuing policies, homeowners will turn to the state as the insurer of last resort. That’s already happening in Florida. Even then, however, the government as insurer doesn’t guarantee a homeowner will be paid should an extreme weather event occur. A growing inventory of uninsurable properties is the outcome which points to an unsustainable future where even the government will have no collateral upon which to base its payouts, particularly if the property is underwater.

Why get this money to offset the federal price per ton on carbon pollution that shows up at the pump when we buy gasoline or diesel fuel, and that is charged when we use natural gas to heat homes? The federal government recently exempted the carbon price for home heating oil in what appears to be an attempt to shore up political support in an area of the country where the majority of homes use it.

The current price per ton of carbon is CDN $85, roughly US $62, which came into effect on April 1, 2024. Each year the carbon price per ton will rise by CDN $15 until 2030. As the price rises so too will the rebate payments.

Is it unusual for governments to put a levy or tax on fuel? No. In Canada, the federal government collects a fixed excise tax per litre of gasoline and diesel. Provincial and municipal governments also tax gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and home heating oil. For drivers of internal-combustion-engine vehicles, federal, provincial and municipal levies inflate the price of these fuels by as much as 30 to 40%.

Canada is not alone in putting a price on carbon pollution. Its rebate paid to families, however, is unique. The world map below shows where carbon pricing schemes were in place in 2022.

As you can see, placing a price on carbon whether described as a tax or as a levy, appears to be the exception to the global rule. Note as well that in Canada, marked in the lighter green, carbon pricing and policies vary. Québec, for example, entered into a cap and trade agreement with the U.S. state of California.

This second world map shows an alternative scheme to reduce carbon emissions using a trading system that popularly goes by the name cap and trade.

To say the least, the policy of pricing carbon pollution is perceived by many to be a tax in my country. Some provinces have challenged the federal government’s constitutional authority to impose carbon pricing. The challenges have failed in court.

The majority of Canadians recognize the need to reduce fossil fuel demand but don’t necessarily understand how pricing carbon pollution gets us to net zero by 2050.

The recent pricing increase in April has caused leaders of provincial, municipal, business, and federal opposition parties to call for a rollback. The leader of the opposition in the federal parliament launched an “axe the tax” campaign.

So how did a market-driven carbon pricing scheme come into being? Its origins date back to the creation of the American Environmental Protection Agency under the Nixon Administration in the 1970s. Offsetting emissions led to regulations to deal with noxious chemicals in the air and water. Companies entered a marketplace with assigned pricing per ton on pollutants like lead, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and more. The acid rain crisis and the chemical threat to the ozone layer could be addressed by using this market-driven policy to make companies pay for every ton of contributing pollutants and reward others for not polluting.

In the 1990s, the idea of putting a price on carbon emissions using a market-driven scheme began to take hold. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 included carbon pricing mechanisms within the global treaty. In 2008, the province of British Columbia was the first Canadian jurisdiction to implement carbon pricing and make it revenue-neutral. The federal government adopted the British Columbia approach to reducing carbon pollution in 2019.

Pushback against carbon pricing to combat rising emissions and global warming can produce two results.

The first is to do nothing, to be in utter denial, to act as if there is no carbon problem for humanity to address, that science is wrong, or it’s our fate and God’s will.

The second is to develop an alternate policy like that of the current U.S. administration where a carbon tax has been an unsaleable national program. In the absence of a national strategy before the 2020 election, individual states, 24 in total, had adopted carbon reduction strategies that included pricing carbon, cleaner transportation initiatives, and emission caps.

With the change in leadership beginning in 2021, the federal government in the U.S. passed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and along with other government legislation has produced multiple strategies combining policies, investments, subsidies, and regulations aimed at decarbonizing the entire economy.

The IRA includes initiatives to:

• Create 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035 using programs and subsidies for renewable energy, nuclear power, and the expansion of the nation’s infrastructure to support carbon-free energy transmission.
• Transition to zero-emission transportation by investing in programs to build electric vehicles, an electric vehicle infrastructure, and other clean transportation technologies including sustainable and low-carbon fuels for air and marine transportation.
• Decarbonize existing buildings, homes, and industries through improved energy efficiency in those already built, retrofits, net-zero revisions to building codes, and updates to appliance standards.
• Develop and deploy low-carbon technologies across all industrial sectors including the manufacture of steel, aluminum and cement.
• Invest in direct air capture, carbon sequestration, and other negative emissions technologies that remove carbon and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
• Promote an agricultural revolution in farming practices that reduce methane emissions, improve land management, and enhance soil natural carbon sinks.
• Change forestry management practices to increase afforestation and reforestation, and implement new land use practices that reduce wildfire incidents.
• Reward research and development focused on demonstrating clean energy and climate technologies that can scale and provide private sector investment incentives to achieve net zero by 2050.
• Incentivize banking and finance to support climate-based carbon-emission-reducing technology initiatives.

Of course, putting a price on carbon pollution could have been incorporated into the mix of such aforementioned policies and practices. In Canada, along with carbon pricing have come many programs similar to those in the U.S. But in choosing carbon pricing Canada has attempted to have citizens participate in the process of tackling carbon emissions and dealing with climate change more directly. Through the market mechanism of carbon pricing, Canadians are either buying in or not.

Of the two strategies, the market-driven one or the regulatory one, which is preferable?

A majority of economists believe carbon pricing is more effective to decarbonize and combat climate change. Assigning a cost to carbon in the form of a tax or levy, or in creating carbon trading markets, polluters, in their best interests, find ways to reduce emission exposure. That’s not to say that combining carbon pricing, regulations and subsidies doesn’t have merit, particularly in targeting specific sectors of the economy.

The majority of economists ascribe to a balanced strategy that includes efficiency and equity. Efficiency comes from carbon pricing using market forces to reduce emissions. Equity comes from rebates to households that offset the disproportionate impact of carbon pricing on those earning a lower income.

Finally, regulations and subsidies when applied to individual economic sectors spur investments and innovation in emission-reduction technologies.

So carbon pricing almost a decade later in Canada remains a good idea that maybe needs a better sales pitch.

He is not known for his battle prowess but rather for a book entitled On War which he described as “nothing but a duel on an extensive scale.” Von Clausewitz also wrote:

“War is a mere continuation of policy by other means.”

and,

“War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce.”

In the early 19th century the wars von Clausewitz participated in were largely clashes of armies and navies. Seldom were entire nations disrupted with thousands of bystanders killed as collateral damage.

It wasn’t until the American Civil War fought between 1861 and 1865 that the world witnessed the nearest thing to total war. That conflict forewarned us about a future of conflagrations we would see unfold in the 20th century where tens of millions of civilians became victims, genocide became an instrument of some governments’ policies, and cities and entire countries were razed to the ground. The end of the Second World War led to MAD, mutually assured destruction because of the invention of the atomic bomb.

In the 20th century, post-colonial wars were fought from Southeast Asia to Africa. Some of these became proxy wars between the two Cold War antagonists, the Western bloc led by the United States, and the Eastern led by Russia and China. We are still living with the seismic geopolitical fault lines of the 20th century exposed and in a world reconciling its European colonial past. Antagonisms continue to divide East and West, Global North and Global South, and Developed and Developing Worlds.

Are the conflicts of the 21st-century policy by other means? Before we answer that question we should note that 21st-century conflicts come in two flavours.

The first is less driven by bullets and bombs than by geoeconomics. These conflicts and confrontations reflect global rivalries between East and West, North and South, Developed and Developing and manifest themselves as trade blocs, tariffs, sanctions and occasional sabre-rattling. The expression of geoeconomic rivalry becomes visible every year at the opening of The United Nations when political leaders make their speeches in front of the General Assembly.

The second is conflicts we read about in today’s newspaper headlines. These are post-colonial wars and include:

• The ongoing wars of post-colonial Africa enveloping the Sahel region and Congo: From Mali to Somalia, wars of ideology and ethnicity fuelled by colonial boundaries that never made sense are spreading. Mali and Burkina Faso face rebel forces that are religious and ideological. In Sudan, a civil war has entered its second year. Millions have been killed and displaced. In The Congo, invading armies from neighbouring countries are vying to control the country’s rich resources and causing massive population displacement.
• The Russian-Ukraine war is a different kind of post-colonial confrontation: The Soviet Union and Imperial Russia, and before that Lithuania and Poland exerted a hold on Ukraine for almost a thousand years. The break up of the Soviet Union, however, created an opportunity for Ukrainians to declare their independence. Russia’s authoritarian regime seeks to dominate the new nation to stop it from realigning itself with Europe.
• The Israel-Hamas war is the ultimate expression of colonial policy failure: When Great Britain’s government during World War One issued the Balfour Declaration, promising a homeland for Jews in Palestine, it was still a province of the Ottoman Empire at the time. After the war, Britain was given authority over Palestine mandated by The League of Nations. Britain instituted the Declaration as a policy while at the same time providing assurances to native resident Palestinians that their rights would be recognized. The Second World War led to The Holocaust where Europe’s Jews were nearly exterminated. Post-war Palestine became a haven for Europe’s Jewish survivors. Confrontation was inevitable. Jews across the Arab World were driven from their homes with the announcement of the new Jewish state of Israel in Palestine. Equally millions of Palestinians who found themselves on the losing side of several wars fought between Israel and its Arab neighbours, lost their homes and continue to be casualties of war and occupation. The Hamas attack in October 2023 and the Israeli response have resonated across the entire Middle East and elsewhere adding fuel to overriding global geoeconomic conflicts.

These three examples described above are not the only conflicts of this century, and von Clausewitz’s invocation of war as policy by other means continues to show its ineffectiveness. Also, I’m uncertain that geoeconomic conflicts can remain nonviolent as we face the uncertainty of climate change.

Why do I say this? Climate change is altering the political and economic landscape, changing weather, causing food and freshwater scarcity, seeing ocean levels inundate island nations, and fuelling fights for increasingly scarce resources. Does this lead to a return to world wars fought for water, food, energy and other resources? Doesn’t that describe Germany and Japan’s wars of the 20th century?

Von Clausewitz saw war as policy, a means to resolve what diplomacy had failed to achieve. Hitler and the Nazis, and the militarist leadership in Japan carried out the von Clausewitz agenda.

In today’s geopolitical conflicts, however, wars have been proven to be policy failures. Wherever and whenever they are unleashed they feed greater conflagrations, like watching the forestry management policy of controlled burns go awry, turning into wildfires that consume entire forests leaving nothing for the initiator or victims.

American companies continue to dominate a maturing space industry and are looking for low-Earth-orbit, lunar and Deep Space opportunities. They have received 66% of the money invested. SpaceX and Blue Origin account for almost half of the total. Besides them and other U.S. companies, investment capital is being raised for ventures from China, Japan, Singapore, India, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, Italy, Canada and New Zealand.

Commercial space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin have become well-known today. Another, Rocket Lab, from New Zealand, has been making a name for itself with a burgeoning launch business and a demonstration of reusability. Sierra Space and Axiom are establishing themselves in low-Earth orbit ventures through contracts with NASA. SpaceX, Boeing and Blue Origin are NASA suppliers of goods and services. Recently, Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost and Venturi Astrolab have won Artemis Program contracts to supply lunar surface mobiles.

NASA has contracted several private companies for future missions including Artemis. These include:

• Northrop Grumman provides resupply capsules to the International Space Station (ISS) and has been contracted to do work on a commercial space station and the Artemis Program.
• Special Aerospace Services is designing robots and service modules for the ISS and future programs.
• ThinkOrbital Inc. is designing space infrastructure and orbital platforms.

American wannabes include lesser-known names:

• ICON is a 3D-printing company with plans to build habitations on the Moon and Mars using at-hand regolith materials.
• Varda Space Industries is a manufacturer developing technology for the microgravity environment to create products for use in space and on Earth.
• True Anomaly is a company focused on building robust space security and is working on projects for the U.S. Space Force.

Joining these are several companies that have raised venture capital outside of the U.S:

• D-Orbit is an Italian company focused on building and deploying a constellation of satellites to clean up low-Earth orbit space junk.
• Qosmosys is a Singapore company developing a spacecraft called ZeusX to support lunar infrastructure with links to NASA’s Artemis Program.
• NorthStar Earth and Space is a Canadian company intent on building satellites to monitor space traffic from space.
• The Exploration Company is a German-French commercial collaboration building a modular space capsule called Nyx whose demonstration flight is planned for this year with full deployment in 2026.
• Orbex is a UK company building a two-stage rocket called Reflight with a reusable first stage designed for low-velocity reentry.
• Shanghai Spacecom Satellite Technology (SSST) is a municipal government-backed company that has raised nearly $1 billion to finance a constellation of low-Earth orbit communication satellites called the G60.

Then there is VAST Space, a company with an aggressive timeline and a sole investor named Jed McCaleb who as a software engineer has made his money through cryptocurrency applications. He is estimated to be worth more than $2 billion. He is not looking for other investors yet and plans to deploy the first commercial space station in low-Earth orbit sometime next year.

VAST has recently announced plans to use the SpaceX Starlink laser communication network for the station called Haven-1. It will be launched on a Falcon 9 rocket and use Dragon capsules to send four people up to it for 30-day missions. The Starlink laser network will provide high-speed, Wi-Fi Internet access to Haven-1 for video and voice communications with Earth.

A demo version of Haven is planned for launch this year. Haven-1 is scheduled for launch in the second half of 2025. Haven-1 will feature both a microgravity and lunar artificial gravity environment. The station is designed to stay in orbit for three years and de-orbit itself when no longer in use.

A seven-metre Haven space station replacement will follow. It is too big to be launched by a Falcon 9 and will use the SpaceX Starship for deployment. It will be the first to offer inhabitants an artificial gravity environment. Subsequently, 6 additional modules will be daisy-chained to it and provide microgravity, Earth, Venus, Mars, and Moon gravity environments. The seven modules will accommodate up to 8 inhabitants.

Other commercial space stations are in the works with NASA investments made in projects from Axiom, Starlab and Orbital Reef (a joint venture involving Sierra Space and Blue Origin). These named projects are the ones that NASA has in mind to replace the ISS sometime around 2030. The projects have received about a half billion dollars to build a replacement ISS that cost $100 billion when constructed.

How is it possible to build replacements for the ISS with such little money? The opportunity for venture capital markets to get involved is real knowing that the revenue these ISS replacements will earn will come from renting space in space and providing services to tenants like NASA, other countries’ space agencies, and private enterprises.

Does the math add up? Currently, I would say no. If I were a betting man I would put my money on ISS to be extended beyond 2030. Meanwhile, China will expand or replace its existing Tiangong station, an ISS mimic. I’m not sure the noise and announcements from Roscosmos for a Chinese-Russian space station are real.

The Swiss women’s group, KlimaSeniorinnen, represents 2,400 older women, the youngest in the group is 64. These women are active and appear to be in relatively good health. Nonetheless, their lawsuit argued that inaction on carbon emissions was raising global atmospheric temperatures and posing an immediate threat to health using statistics from Europe’s last two summers that showed older women were victims of the abnormally hot temperatures experienced by the continent.

Charlotte Blattner, a specialist in climate law at the University of Berne, told The Guardian, that the ruling makes it urgent for governments to respond to anthropogenic global warming and that it “be held accountable for their lack of adequate action.” The likely outcome of this ruling will spur citizens in other countries to launch similar lawsuits against their governments for inaction.

Studies done at the University of Berne have provided evidence that older women are particularly vulnerable to heat with heat-caused death rates rising in Europe. The threat is European-wide.

An October 24, 2023 study published in the journal Nature Medicine estimated 61,672 deaths from heat in Europe happened between May 30 and September 4, 2022. No similar study has yet to be published for last year although the summer of 2023 was even hotter than that experienced in 2022.

What did the 2022 data show? Weekly temperatures reached between 0.78 to 2.33 Celsius above normal (1.4 to 4.2 Fahrenheit) in June, 0.18 to 3.56  Celsius (0.32 to 6.4 Fahrenheit) above normal in July, and rose 0.91 to 2.67 Celsius (1.6 to 4.8 Fahrenheit) above the norm in August. The highest death counts directly attributed to the 2022 summer heat occurred in these European countries:

• Italy had 18,010 heat-related deaths.
• Spain had 11,324 heat-related deaths.
• Germany had 8,173 heat-related deaths.
• France had 4,807 heat-related deaths.
• The United Kingdom had 3,469 heat-related deaths.
• Greece had 3,092 heat-related deaths.

For all of Europe, women were disproportionately affected by the 2022 summer heatwaves. Women between the ages of 65 and 79 experienced death rates 6% above the norm. Women above 80 saw a death rate 121% above the norm.

What were the Swiss numbers that summer? According to SwissInfo, a branch of the Swiss Broadcasting System, anthropogenic global warming caused 60% of Swiss heat deaths overall, and 3.5% of the total deaths in 2022.

Epidemiologist Ana Vicedo-Cabrera at the University of Berne, told SwissInfo, “Without human-induced climate change, more than 370 people would not have died in Switzerland in the summer of 2022 as a result of the heat.” 

In other words, these were avoidable deaths if the Swiss government had chosen to enact policies to mitigate climate change. That was the conclusion of the ECHR.

For other citizen groups seeking action on climate, the KlimaSeniorinnen victory should inspire them to use the courts as a prod to get more aggressive climate change mitigation policies enacted by their governments.

A Reuters news report describes the implications of the ECHR ruling. It quotes Joie Chowdhury, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environment Law, who stated: “We expect this ruling to influence climate action and climate litigation across Europe and far beyond. The ruling reinforces the vital role of courts, both international and domestic, in holding governments to their legal obligations to protect human rights from environmental harm.”

Described as a “watershed legal moment for climate justice and human rights,” the case is seen as a blueprint for similar cases. Reuters reports there are six other cases to be heard by the ECHR including one against the Norwegian government which has been accused of violating human rights through the issuing of licences to explore for oil and gas in the Barents Sea.

In Canada, Fraser Thomson, an Ecojustice lawyer, describes the European ruling as a turning point for Canadian climate law stating “It represents the growing chorus, the growing recognition that climate change is a human rights crisis, and that the 2020s is the most critical decade.” Thomson represents seven young people who have challenged the government in the Province of Ontario related to climate change and its violation of their rights under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University tracks global cases launched by citizens against governments failing to act. As of the end of 2022, the number reached 2,180.

From the first releases of Large Language Models like ChatGPT, artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly become one of the most common topics discussed here at 21st Century Tech Blog. When I last looked there have been more than 380 postings to the site. 

In this contribution, Andy talks about the way AI is changing business operations and opportunities. It’s a good addition to the growing library of content that you can access on the subject through search, the menu bar, or at the bottom of the homepage of the website. Enjoy the read and as always feel free to comment.

AI can mean many different things. Companies have access to a wide array of options including machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, deep learning and more, all of which can be applied in day-to-day business operations. These technologies help machines learn from data, understand human language, and interpret visual information, to make business operations smarter and more efficient.

A key feature of businesses using AI is the automation of tasks. AI systems are good at doing rote, repetitive, everyday things which means people can spend more time on creative parts of the business. Automation of rote processes is efficient and reduces error rates.

AI enables businesses to make well-informed decisions through analyzing and understanding historical data. AI algorithms are faster than humans at processing extensive data, recognizing patterns, and offering valuable insights. Data-driven AI decision-making, therefore, helps businesses adapt faster, with knowledge in hand, to market shifts.

Collaborative Ecosystems

The business environments of tomorrow won’t solely focus on independent AI applications. Instead, they will emphasize ecosystems where AI collaborates with human intelligence to leverage the full potential of the combination. 

A collaborative business ecosystem marrying AI to existing staff acts like a collective learning accelerator. It applies not just to the people in a single business but also to partnerships with other companies, combining strengths to address complex and collective challenges. For example, a company specializing in AI algorithms might collaborate with another focused on hardware to innovate together. 

The concept of open innovation is integral to collaborative ecosystems. It involves sharing ideas and innovations with external entities rather than keeping everything proprietary. By embracing open innovation, businesses can leverage external expertise and contribute to a more dynamic and rapidly evolving ecosystem.

Successful collaborative ecosystems often revolve around shared goals and values. Whether it is a commitment to ethical AI practices, sustainable development, or addressing societal challenges, a shared vision provides a unifying force that guides the collaborative efforts of the ecosystem.Intelligent Decision-Making

AI systems are good at spotting patterns in data. Using machine learning algorithms, they find connections, trends, and unusual occurrences that human decision-makers may not notice, especially in dealing with big datasets.

Decision-making often involves predictive analytics where AI models can forecast future outcomes based on viewing historical data. This allows businesses to predict trends, identify potential risks, and make proactive decisions.

Some AI applications are good at real-time decision-making. The algorithms continuously analyze data streams and provide insights instantly. This is valuable in dynamic and fast-paced environments where timely decisions are needed.

Intelligent decision-making with AI is not static; it is adaptable and evolves. Machine learning algorithms learn from new data, adjust to changing conditions, and continuously refine decision-making models to improve accuracy and relevance. 

AI also contributes to effective risk management. It assesses potential risks associated with various scenarios and proposed strategies to provide invaluable insights.

AI contributes to strategic planning by analyzing market dynamics, competitors’ activities, and internal performance metrics. In this way, it helps formulate and adjust long-term business strategies.

For all that has been stated above, that’s why businesses need to embrace AI. They will need it to thrive and survive in the 21st century. AI will be a key driver of innovation bringing people and machines together in ways few would have predicted at the turn of this century.

But in Canada, it was a Liberal federal government that acted to put a price on carbon pollution and it is the current Conservative Party that is opposed. The latter has started an “axe-the-tax” campaign that has encouraged street protests and buy-in from many of Canada’s provincial premiers.

On April 1, 2024, the federal government raised the price of carbon pollution with an average increase of 3.5 cents per litre of gasoline and diesel, as well as proportionate increases on other fossil fuels by raising the benchmark $15 CDN to $80 per ton. Every ton of CO2 or methane (CH4) emitted is, therefore, accounted for through Canadian purchases of fossil fuels. Some have criticized the government for choosing April Fool’s Day to increase the price, but the truth is the date coincides with the start of the federal government’s fiscal year which begins every April. The $15 annual increase is slated to continue each April until at least 2030 when carbon pricing will reach $170 per ton.

A few years ago I joined Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada (CCL), a voluntary group focused on lobbying the government to work towards a more livable future.  CCL has been a staunch advocate for carbon pricing as an effective way to deal with climate change. It has taken this stance because it sees carbon pricing as pivotal to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, driving innovation, and safeguarding economic competitiveness. What is interesting is that CCL is a group of everyday citizens who have taken on the task of becoming more informed about carbon pollution and have been sharing what they have learned with their political representatives. It has proved to be an effective means of moving forward with government environmental policy related to climate change mitigation.

Recently, a note from CCL contained an Open Letter from Economists on Canadian Carbon Pricing signed by approximately 200 Canadian economists. The letter presented evidence and facts to back “economically sensible policies to reduce emissions at a low cost.” It looked at affordability concerns for average Canadians. It addressed the impact of pricing on business competitiveness and the overall Canadian economy.

The open letter contains 5 claims by critics of carbon pricing. I have summarized these below:

Critics’ Claim #1: Carbon pricing won’t reduce GHG emissions.

What the evidence shows: Not only does carbon pricing reduce emissions, but it does so at a lower cost than other approaches.  

Critics’ Claim #2: Carbon pricing drives up the cost of living and is a major cause of inflation.

What the evidence shows: Canadian carbon pricing has a negligible impact on overall inflation.

Critics’ Claim #3: It makes little sense to have both a carbon price and rebates. 

What the evidence shows: The price-and-rebate approach acts as an incentive to reduce carbon emissions as the price rises while maintaining most households’ overall purchasing power.

Critics’ Claim #4: Carbon pricing harms Canadian business competitiveness.

What the evidence shows:  Canada’s carbon-pricing scheme is designed to help businesses reduce emissions at low cost, while competing in the emerging low-carbon global economy.  

Critics’ Claim #5:  Carbon pricing isn’t necessary.

What the evidence shows:  Here the critics are right. Canada could abandon carbon pricing and still hit our climate targets by using regulations and subsidies—but it would be much more costly. 

The CCL note contained the following:

1. Since the inception of federal carbon pricing in 2019, Canada has witnessed a notable decrease of almost 8% in GHG emissions, with projections indicating that carbon pricing will contribute substantially to emissions reductions by 2030.
2. Evidence from the Bank of Canada indicates carbon pricing has had a negligible impact on overall inflation. Factors such as disruptions from climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions have primarily influenced inflation rates.
3. Carbon-pricing revenues are being rebated to households, ensuring that the policy economically unburdens most Canadians. In some families, the rebates total more than what these families outlay when they purchase gasoline or diesel at the pump. Carbon pricing is a disincentive to use fossil fuels for energy needs. The dollars returned through rebates give householders more purchasing power. The Climate Action Network Canada, an umbrella group representing over 200 climate organizations, states that many Canadians have come to depend on quarterly rebates to meet basic needs.
4. Canada’s carbon pricing is designed to promote emission reduction without compromising business competitiveness. Industries are incentivized to adopt low-carbon practices through output-based pricing while remaining economically viable in the global marketplace.
5. While alternatives to carbon pricing exist such as the laws enacted in the United States where it appears resistance to putting a price on pollution comes from mostly conservative voices, these policies and the regulations required to enforce them cost more than the market-based carbon pricing in place in Canada.

Cathy Orlando is the National Director of CCL Canada. She describes Canada’s carbon-pricing policies as “exemplary in achieving all these objectives,” referring to reducing emissions, addressing affordability, maintaining business competitiveness and facilitating a transition to a low-carbon economic future.

Why the federal Conservative Party continues to balk at carbon pricing mystifies me since they have always believed that the market should dictate our future path, and have advocated market-based environmental policy in the past. Instead, the Conservative Party wants industry to invent solutions and the government to impose regulations.

“Every age has its particular folly; some scheme, project, or phantasy into which it plunges, spurred on either by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation.”

Mackay’s words are relevant today. We are witnessing a dramatic change starting in the last decade with the arrival of smartphones accompanied by social media applications. Whether TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or other types of social media platforms, young people have become addicted. Jonathan Haidt in his book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, was a guest on Bill Maher’s Realtime last Friday. Haidt described how childhood changed between 2010 and 2015 pointing to increased levels of self-harm and suicide. He linked this rise to smartphones and high-speed Internet connectivity noting that smartphones were isolating young people rather than encouraging them to play.

All young mammals play. Whether puppies, kittens, cubs, baby whales, you name it, play is an important stage in mammalian development. Smartphones and small screens, however, have physically changed how children play and interact. More today happens with children staring at digital displays where they type, tap and react to what is seen.

Ubiquitous access to the Internet and parenting changes represent a dangerous confluence threatening the well-being of young people is the conclusion of another important publication entitled Social Media and Adolescent Health, edited by Sandro Galea, physician, epidemiologist, and a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, Gillian J. Buckley, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Alexis Wojtowicz, a Bloomberg Fellow and Research Associate at the National Academies of Sciences (NAS).

This NAS publication first defined what was meant by social media, writing:

“Social media refers to interactive technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks. Social media can therefore include social networking, gaming, virtual worlds, video sharing sites, and blogs.”

It reviewed published literature on both smartphone technologies and social media looking at the claims being made of a causal link between the two related to young people’s mental health. It noted the transformation of the world over the last 15 years because of the emergence of smartphones and other handheld devices. It described the “breakneck pace” of information, news and entertainment bombarding eyes fixed on small screens.

It also described how social media works noting features designed to keep users engaged for as long as possible. A feature called affordances is common to all social media platforms. Affordances are algorithms that generate content in response to user requests. Affordances determine the ranking of displayed content, targeted advertising, content moderation, and continuous engagement. Capturing a user’s attention and keeping it to monetize the result is the ultimate end goal.

Social media algorithms also can influence health in the way content is presented with more provocative and sensational posts ranked higher based on the viewing history of the user. This creates distortions and gives rise “to recursive feedback loops.” The result is harmful content, misinformation, fringe views, and conspiracy theories shaping user perceptions.

Sharing on social media furthers its persuasive influence. Likes, badges, points and other features manipulate users and draw them back repeatedly to the platforms. This is harmful to young people and adult frequenters of social media. But for adolescents, it can become deadly affecting their emotions, judgment, and interaction with peers. Disengagement becomes harder fed by manipulative algorithms.

Although social media platforms include usage and consent contracts, most users never read the fine print. They don’t realize that every click and like is collected to shape the messaging that social media ends up sending back to the smartphone and tablet screens being viewed. There is little in the way to ensure viewed content is age-appropriate just as there is no way to ensure new users are not underage when downloading social media apps.

The NAS publication, despite the above, takes a nuanced response to the claim that Haidt makes in his book. Has the social media revolution and the arrival of smartphones been harmful or helpful? NAS concludes both by making two very different observations.

The first states, “Some features of social media function can harm … young people’s mental health. These include, but are not limited to, algorithmically driven distortions of reality exacerbating harmful content and disinformation, the distraction away from time that can otherwise be used in more healthy ways, and the creation of opportunities where youth can be abused or exploited.”

The second points to social media as a means to “improve the lives of youth, including the creation of opportunities for community among more marginalized youth, and the opportunity for fun and joy for the vast majority of users.” 

To reconcile the evil and good of smartphones and the proliferation of social media, the NAS publication recommended:

• Development of industry standards to ensure social media is used responsibly by young people.
• Educators and healthcare providers work with social media developers to protect young people from online abuse.
• Further research to better understand the causal links between social media and mental health.

When the Internet and the Worldwide Web emerged in the early 1990s, I was an earnest advocate. I saw it as a way for global knowledge sharing.

When social media arrived in the first decade of the 21st century, I thought this would break down social, political and ideological barriers, and be a positive force for change in the world.

Today, I realize my naïveté in drawing both conclusions. I see the NAS publication as continuing to reflect a similar naïveté. Haidt’s conclusions persuade me. The addictive properties of social media and smartphone use in young people will only worsen outcomes if we as parents, educators, publishers, and software developers don’t address it and find solutions.