The virus’ biggest lesson? We are NOT ready for the climate emergency

Without a doubt, upon discovering the corona virus China reacted swiftly – building two huge hospitals in only two weeks and also placing 50 million citizens under quarantine. Certainly, these measures led to some success. Since February 19, in China, the number of newly recovered patients has been greater than the number of newly infected every day.

Because the health crisis still spread around the world, other countries too initiated drastic measures to combat the problem:  

·         At least 73 airlines canceled flights to China.

·         43 countries have enacted entry restrictions on travelers from South Korea.

·         Multiple countries called upon their citizens to refrain from unnecessary travel abroad.

·        After the number of people infected in Northern Italy soared to 130, the Italian government put 11 towns in the affected region on lockdown and Venetian authorities shut down the immensely popular Venice carnival. Also put on hold – the filming of Tom Cruise’s latest “Mission Impossible”-adventure of which a part was to be shot in Venice.

·         Japan and Italy closed down schools, and

·         In Europe, corporate emergency plans are forcing employees to work remotely.

Regardless of whether one considers these and other measures sufficient or not, undoubtedly, there is an obvious urgency about containing and solving the health crisis, probably also fueled by relentless, 24/7 media coverage questioning what more could or should be done.

Which makes this blogger wonder:

“Why are we not seeing a similar urgency regarding dealing with the climate emergency?”

Already, every year, natural disasters kill around 90,000 people and affect close to 160 million people worldwide.

But, that’s only the beginning. In 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) predicted that the climate emergency would lead to 250,000 deaths per year; in 2020, the authors of a new report in the New England Journal of Medicine called this number a “conservative estimate.”

Yet, no airline is cancelling any flights because of the increasing climate emergency and no ministry is calling on anybody to refrain from unnecessary travel abroad; plus, there is no 24/7 debate on TV whether the government is doing enough to reign in the climate emergency. In fact, in 2019, broadcast networks covered the climate crisis just 0.7% of the time.

The answer to my question seems to be James Carville’s most famous phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” 

Whereas we cannot put a number on the damage climate disasters will cause in the future we know the financial damage the corona virus causes right now. China is a manufacturing powerhouse and the world's second largest economy. As a result 94% of the Fortune 1000 are seeing coronavirus supply chain disruptions. Not surprisingly, these problems are reflected on stock markets worldwide.

But, again, I ask: What does this tell us with respect to the climate emergency?

China gets hit by typhoons quite frequently. If, in the future, the climate emergency will produce more super typhoons it will affect the economy and, additionally, cause damage to Chinese infrastructure which we don’t see during this health crisis. 

Even worse, the climate emergency can produce multiple disastrous weather events in a row and in multiple countries, simultaneously. In 2020, which is only in its second month, Australia suffered catastrophic damage from bush fires, ash rain, dust storms, flash flooding, and one hailstorm that produced golf ball sized hail. [Video] Right around the same time, the United Kingdom felt the impact of bomb cyclone Dennis, and winter storm Ciara/Sabine tore through Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, and Poland.

“Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk logistics.” – Gen. Omar Bradley

While I am neither a doctor nor an economist I have been involved with logistics and project planning one way or the other almost my entire life. Thus, I believe that the corona virus crisis demonstrates in the most obvious way that the world is woefully ill-prepared for dealing with the climate emergency.

If right now, the supply of face masks is a problem how will we deal with water and food shortages due to disastrous climate events, food scarcity, agricultural degradation, and/or resulting violent conflicts?

And, that’s just the most obvious problem because while we may not need face masks all of us do need food.

The financial industry too is well aware of this real problem. A leaked document from JP Morgan's economists, dated January 14, 2020, warns that "although precise predictions are not possible, it is clear that the Earth is on an unsustainable trajectory. Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going to survive."  

!!

Thus, my advice, if you want to worry about the big crisis or want to bash the US government on social media, take aim at the impeding catastrophes the climate emergency will cause and wonder how your children will survive.

And: Don’t idle your car! It’s the easiest way to deprive the fossil fuel industry of money they are used to earn.

As the corona virus crisis shows depriving industries of financial gains seems to be the fastest way to get their attention and to prompt the world to react decisively. 

*

Visit our Facebook page: Earthday = No-Idling Day – Home

Gisela Hausmann is a creative provocateur, nonfiction writer, and environmentalist. Her work has been featured in regional, national, and international publications including Success magazine and Entrepreneur, and on Bloomberg's podcast "Decrypted."

She tweets @Naked_Determina.

RYX6ZF8QT9YW

© 2020 by Gisela Hausmann

Who is going to protect you from the climate emergency?

It seems to me that only people who get "funded or sponsored" by industries that contribute to the climate emergency "don't believe" that it's already happening.

In truth, even a person who lives under a rock would know about the dire state of our planet, if the person had a phone and a social media account. This is what I saw in my feed on February 7, and practically every week:

The climate emergency is expensive

Some people already deal with the climate emergency's effects on a regular basis.

The owners of this house live behind sandbags. The recurring torrential rainfalls in the region force them to live this way. Of course, their problem could be solved by installing French drains but doing that is quite expensive.

In regions along the east coast, people have seen their electricity bills skyrocket because in their environments the recurring hurricanes knocked over tens of thousands of shade trees.

Additionally, in states along the Atlantic and the Gulf, windstorm insurance policies increased steadily for an obvious reason: In the last twenty years, the United States has been hit by 13 Cat-5 hurricanes that caused damages in the hundreds of billions, which doesn't include the costs of smaller hurricanes.

At some point in the not so far future, insurance policies might get so expensive that many people can't afford them any longer (or can't afford eating out or other entertainment because they have to pay the higher premiums.)

The question is – Who is going to help us, if things get worse? 

Though all of us can always take more steps to reduce our carbon footprint, in reality, our options are limited by the opportunities corporations and governments create.

While, recently, I could make the choice to buy a refurbished (instead of a new) computer from a local business, which was also not packaged for getting transported from one end of the country to the other, I have limited choices when it comes to buying groceries because they are packaged the way their manufacturers decide to package them.

Unfortunately, corporations don't always make the best choices for our planet. For example, though Environmentalists want Coca-Cola to ditch its plastic bottles, the company says people like them too much.

It appears that Coca-Cola who produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute seems to think we like that.

Or, put in a nutshell, Coca-Cola seems to "blame us," the consumers, for producing more plastic than this planet can bear when they could easily switch to "aluminum cans only." Aluminum cans are recycled at the highest recycling rate for any beverage container.

While in the world of fiction the strong protect and guide the weak, in this case, Fortune 500's company #100, who is well aware of plastic littering the world, seems to make solving the problem our, the people's, problem. And, it appears that their point of view is that if the climate emergency costs us more money, it's not their problem because "we like their plastic bottles." Meanwhile, the company netted more than 6 billion dollars in profit last year.

"We protect ourselves"

Coca-Cola's statement demonstrates that in order to protect the planet and influence the government and huge corporations to make the best choices, we have to literally "force them" to do better.

Here is Mark Ruffalo laying out the argument that only we can protect ourselves in the movie "Dark Waters" (2019).

It's about measurable actions  

To protect ourselves, we have to show the government and huge corporations that we are serious about wanting our greater home, planet Earth, protected – by taking measurable actions.

If Americans (and people worldwide) would stop buying Coca-Cola's 200 products in plastic bottles and switch to drinks that are bottled in aluminum cans (and recycle them at an even higher rate), the company would probably change their opinions in a heartbeat.

If you ever sat in on a budget meeting you know what would happen at Coca-Cola. The Chief Financial Officer would say, "The unsold merchandise costs us x amount of dollars in warehousing. Additionally, we are losing x amount of dollars in sales per day..."

And, a decision to change course would be made relatively quickly.

Similarly, if Americans stopped idling their cars in drive-throughs and treated them like special parking spaces (only the elderly, the disabled, and parents with young children in the car would use them), this easy action step would save Americans a good chunk of money and at the same time cost the fossil fuel industry millions of dollars per day.

Money talks... and the loss thereof does too

"Refusing to buy" is the most obvious way to signal to the government and huge corporations that since they ignored our protests in the streets, we, "the people," are "moving on to the next step of protesting."

To change corporations' and the government's opinions, nobody has to change their way of living and bicycle to work or take the bus, or raise chicken and goats behind their house. All we need to do is "avoid buying products that harm the planet," especially from huge corporations whose misguided ways of doing business do the most harm.

At this point "protecting ourselves" (and our financial bottom line) means asking ourselves: Is it more convenient having to shell out hundreds of dollars for higher utility bills and thousands of dollars for higher insurance premiums than buying drinks in aluminum cans instead of plastic bottles or taking the few steps from parking lots to businesses' doors? 

*

Join us on Facebook and share how many plastic bottles you did not buy and how much CO2 you are keeping out of the Earth’s atmosphere (about 250 grams of CO2 per not using a drive-through).

*

Gisela Hausmann is a creative provocateur, nonfiction writer, and environmentalist. Her work has been featured in regional, national, and international publications including Success magazine and Entrepreneur, and on Bloomberg's podcast "Decrypted."

She tweets @Naked_Determina.

RYX6ZF8QT9YW
© 2020 by Gisela Hausmann

Environmental hypocrisy from the United States' biggest retailers

There is a dirty secret hidden in plain view – millions of Americans spend their lunch time in their cars. Just check out parking lots during lunch time, at 24-hour businesses, even at night.

In the following video please keep an eye on the four cars marked in this screenshot.

I took this video at night so the headlights and the CO2 emissions would show which cars are occupied: 4 out of 10 cars visible in this video.

Idling the average car that consumes an average of 0.4 gallons of gas per hour causes 3,554 grams of CO2 (per hour) getting emitted into Earth’s atmosphere.

The lunch break at most US companies is 30 minutes. Hence, on that day, these four cars released a combined 6,000 grams (6 kilos) or more than 13 pounds of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere.

Now, before you think too harshly about the people who spend their lunch time in their cars, ask yourself:

Why would anybody spend their recreational time in a small space of around 100 cubic feet?

In the United States about 16 million people work in retail. If you ever visited the rest room at any retail store, you could probably glance at the store's break-room which, usually, is next to the restrooms.

Drab is too little of a word to describe these environments.

White walls, the cheapest chairs and tables on the market, a small counter with a microwave and an old coffee machine, and two vending machines (food & snacks) dominate the space.

This is especially ridiculous at home improvements stores. Don't home improvement stores tell us that a “fresh coat of paint is the cheapest way to spruce up any home?” Yet, if you get to peak into one of Home Depot's or Lowe's break-rooms, you won't see any vibrant painted walls or at least an inspiring orange or blue wall border.

Please click this picture to see images of best break rooms in the United States:

Here is a list of the retail stores among the Fortune 100 companies (2018)

1 - Walmart / profit: $6,67 billion / 2.2 million employees

14 - Costco Wholesale / profit: $3,134 billion / 194,000 employees

27 - Home Depot / profit: $11,121 billion / 413,000 employees

39 - Target / profit: $2,937 billion / 360,000 employees

42 - Lowe's / profit: $2,314.0 billion / 245,000 employees

74 - Best Buy / profit: $1,464 billion / 125,000 employees

85 - TJX / profit: $3,059 billion / 270,000 employees

*

Every single one of these companies could afford to paint their break rooms' walls, acquire nice break room furniture, maybe set up a TV or a small basket ball hoop, or be inspired to do even better things by what the best break-rooms in the United States offer.

Most interestingly, Staples's Worklife webpages offer an inspiring article How to Create a Breakroom that Reflects Your Company Culture but having seen three of their break-rooms, I can vouch for the fact that not one of them features at least one of the 5 ideas listed in this article.

In their article, Staples mentions that their survey found that 45% of employees would "use the break-room more if it had furniture to encourage relaxation." But, again, just as Home Depot and Lowe's don't even paint their break-rooms, Staples who sells furniture that encourages relaxation doesn't put that furniture into their own break rooms.

Of course, the same goes for many small companies but their owners often don't have the means to create cool break-rooms whereas Fortune 500 companies do.

Big retail corporations could also tell their employees that idling cars in their parking lots is against the company's rules but my best guess is they won't because taking that step would draw attention to the recreational value of their break-rooms.

The environmental hypocrisy

Though every Fortune 500 company proudly shows off their sustainability plan, none of them mentions the company's plans to create an environment that doesn't prompt their employees to "flee into their cars."

Meanwhile, idling cars in these retail giants' parking lots create an average of 1,500 grams of CO2 (per car, per half hour lunch break).

If only 25% of America's 16 million retail employees work on any given day, and only 25% of them spend their lunch break in their cars, that's 1 million people idling their cars for 1/2 hour, every day.

Which equates to 1.5 billion grams of CO2 getting emitted into the Earth's atmosphere during lunch breaks.

*

We should all call out America's retail giants for not doing everything they can to avoid their employees feeling that they have to spend their lunch break in their cars, because their cars' CO2 emissions bring our planet Earth's climate closer to the tipping point.

At which point, the break-room problem will become all of our problem.

*

Visit our Facebook page: Earthday = No-Idling Day – Home

Gisela Hausmann is a creative provocateur, nonfiction writer, and environmentalist. Her work has been featured in regional, national, and international publications including Success magazine and Entrepreneur, and on Bloomberg's podcast "Decrypted."

She tweets @Naked_Determina.

RYX6ZF8QT9YW
© 2020 by Gisela Hausmann

Why I boycott Starbucks; it’s about great leadership

I love coffee and coffeehouses.

Growing up in Vienna, a city whose coffee house culture is famous around the world, coffeehouses were the epicenters of my friends’ and my world. That’s where we met people, that’s where we planned our future.

For this reason, it would make sense that I like or even love Starbucks, but I don’t buy their products. Instead, I buy coffee energy drinks from a company who sells 95% of their products in 16oz aluminum cans (which contain 73% recycled aluminum and can be recycled again and again, infinitely). To bring awareness to the importance of recycling aluminum, this company also partners with Pocono Raceway and NASCAR Green. Anybody who brings an empty can of one of their products to the “Monster Energy NASCAR Free Friday”-races receives free admission.

This company addresses the issue of packaging their drinks in the most sustainable and consumer friendly way. (In 2018, the industry recycling rate was 63.6% or 56.2 billion cans.)

“A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.” — Rosalynn Carter

Right now, cutting CO2 emissions is the task of the hour.

Starbucks calls themselves a global leader in sustainability, but I have issues with that statement.

In their 2018 Environmental Baseline Report, Starbucks states that “16 million tons of greenhouse gases were emitted in 2018 across Starbucks full value chain, including Land Use Change.” And, that they are doing everything they can to address this issue. Their CO2 emissions are the result of fuel consumption for all modes of transit, energy for coffee roasting, manufacturing and distribution, supply chain waste end of life emissions etc.

However, Starbucks’ Environmental Baseline Report does not mention that the corporation’s main business strategy is to Embrace Drive-throughs because 70% of their sales come from their drive-through windows. That information is found in major business publications. 

In their environmental action plan, Starbucks talks about building LEED certified stores and their plans to donate 100 million healthy coffee trees by 2025. Starbucks also tests recyclable, compostable cups and they want to encourage their customers to favor alternative milks (almond, coconuts, soy or oats) because, by Starbucks’ account, dairy products are the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions across their operations and supply chain. 

“Their operations”? In other words, Starbucks,  the #2 quick-service restaurant chain in the United States in 2018 (by systemwide sales), encourages their customers to choose alternative milks so “their (Starbucks’) operations’ carbon dioxide emission numbers” look better while, at the same time, they encourage customers to use their drive-throughs “for convenience” and to boost their bottom line.

Why not go all the way?

Since Starbucks wants to encourage customers to drink alternative milks, why not also encourage them to park their car and step inside one of their beautiful stores? Of course, walking inside a store isn’t as “convenient” as using a drive-through but, let’s face it, there is absolutely nothing “convenient” about the climate emergency. Great leaders will say that, or even shout it out loud.

At Starbucks, the average drive-thru wait time is 4.44 minutes, one of the slowest in the quick service food industry. As pointed out in one of my blogs, idling a car for 4.25 minutes leads to the car emitting around 250 grams of CO2. (When I myself tested Starbucks’ drive-through service, it took 8 minutes and 39 seconds to receive one latte and one sandwich, on a Sunday afternoon, at 4:55 pm.) 

Here is the math

(1)    CNN reported that Starbucks used 3.85 billion paper cups for hot beverages in 2017 alone.

(2)    According to estimates by Tom Cook, principal at restaurant consultant King-Casey, 70 % of Starbucks’ sales come from the drive-through windows.

(3)    70% of 3.85 billion paper cups equals almost 2.7 billion paper cups.

(4)    If we estimate, that, on average, every customer who used one of Starbucks’ drive-throughs purchased 2.7 cups of latte, this equates to 1 billion customers using a Starbucks drive-through in 2017, or 83.3 million per month.  

What about other quick service food industry businesses?

Most interestingly, at least one of them, McDonalds, found a business strategy to attract a key group of customers without relying on drive-throughs – almost 50 years ago, in the 70’s.

Even though only 2% of customers think that McDonalds offers the best burgers (Statista), McDonalds is the #1 quick-service restaurant chain in the U.S., by systemwide sales. You might ask, “How is this possible? People buy burgers they don’t like best?”

Indeed, 80% of children like visiting McDonalds best, most likely, courtesy of McDonalds offering playground areas and Happy Meals with a toy. Therefore, if, hypothetically, drive-throughs would be outlawed tomorrow, most likely, parents of young children would still visit McDonalds so they can buy Happy Meals for their children. 

“People will sit up and take notice of you if you will sit up and take notice of what makes them sit up and take notice.” — Harry Selfridge

Today, identifying key groups of customers is a key element of any marketing strategy.

Millions of people are protesting the climate emergency, right now. This huge key group is up for grabs. Still, citing security reasons, most fast-food restaurants with drive-throughs don’t serve customers on bicycles or electric scooters.

I believe the argument doesn’t hold water and a few businesses have found solutions.

“The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence – it is to act with yesterday’s logic.” – Peter Drucker

Starbucks’ main business strategy also lacks vision when it comes to local politics. Acknowledging the growing climate crisis, 20 U.S. states and 50 cities signed a pledge to abide by the Paris agreement even though the U.S. government withdrew from it. In fact, some U.S. Cities Are Banning New Fast-Food Drive-Throughs now. 

But, regardless of how quickly other cities join this group, it’s fairly obvious that the next generation won’t use drive-throughs. Can anybody imagine Greta Thunberg’s young fans idling their cars in a drive-through while waiting 4.44 minutes for a latte? This up-and-coming generation will be drinking coffee in less than ten years, hence favoring drive-throughs as a business strategy is not a long-term strategy. 

“Coffee is a way of stealing time which should by rights belong to your older self.” — Terry Pratchett

Like everybody over the age of thirty, I can see our climate changing right in front of my eyes, and I believe we must do everything to stop that process because our older selves should still enjoy coffee, the leisurely way. Having experienced a few minor hurricanes, I know that after disaster strikes, people need to worry about other things than the quality of their coffee.

None of us wants to see more climate disasters hence “great leaders” will point out everything that needs to be done, including that drive-throughs should be reserved for the elderly, the disabled, and mothers with young children in the car.

*

Do you boycott any businesses because they could do more to fight the climate emergency?

*

Visit our Facebook page: Earthday = No-Idling Day – Home

Gisela Hausmann is a creative provocateur, nonfiction writer, and environmentalist. Her work has been featured in regional, national, and international publications including Success magazine and Entrepreneur, and on Bloomberg's podcast "Decrypted."

She tweets @Naked_Determina.

RYX6ZF8QT9YW

© 2020 by Gisela Hausmann