Surviving Climate Change–The Elephant in the Room

If we stop all greenhouse gas emissions, will global climate change stop?

Industrial activity has already pumped billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and we have yet to see the full effect of warming from those gases. A great deal of excess energy imbalance is stored in the ocean and will be released gradually over time, continuing to warm the planet.

In other words, some degree of climate change is irreversible. Scientists call this the "committed warming," and estimate that the Earth would continue to warm about 1 degree Fahrenheit (.6 degrees Celsius) even if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere stopped growing immediately. That is, if all human greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow, the Earth would still warm for at least a half-century. – NASA (emphasis added)

As I listened today to Alberta Government Minister Diana McQueen poke jabs at Opposition Leader Danielle Smith’s personal beliefs about climate change versus what Ms. Smith’s official party policy will be, I couldn’t help but notice the elephant in the room.

As we all argue about whether it is a natural cyclical phenomenon or a man-made one (or both), whether we are warming or cooling, whether someone’s data is accurate or exaggerated, what reasonable reductions in greenhouse emissions are needed, what carbon tax regimens will work best to expedite reductions, etc., we face a reality that I never hear any politician speak about.

It is the reality that if, as opined by NASA, we could stop all greenhouse emissions tomorrow, we have at least 50 years of climate change inertia before us where we will continue to experience significant events in the environment.

Events like ….

- the droughts in Australia

- Hurricane Sandy

- flooding in Calgary and High River

- insert personal event experience here

These are events that are likely to increase in frequency and intensity.

And so as I listen to people argue about melting versus freezing ice caps, whether sea levels will rise an inch or a yard, whether the changes are natural or artificial or I see personal attacks to score political points, I would like to ask a question that doesn’t seem to get much airtime.

What do we intend to do to survive larger, more frequent floods, hurricanes, droughts and everything else?

I’m not saying that research into our contribution to climate change is not important.

But finally identifying our contribution will offer little comfort if we continue to be steamrolled by it because we put more of our focus into stopping what may be unstoppable or if stoppable, not stoppable in a heartbeat … or my personal favorite …. what company, industry or country is mostly to blame.

I wonder if we have secretly thrown in the towel, finding it more satisfying personally, professionally, politically, reputationally and economically to pretend that preventing it is within our reach and that on the day that the magic pill is found, everything will simply reverse to pre-climate change levels?

Are we willing to bet our survival on it?

Climate change will always be with us, regardless of the reason.

Are we able to demonstrate our ability to change with it or are we going to continue to act surprised when events steamroll over us, followed by the inevitable political rhetoric of how we “rose to the occasion yet again”?

Because if we aren’t able to provide better strategies regarding surviving climate change, I would posit that we are more like ostriches than humans.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – November 2, 2013

An interesting item – President Obama passes an Executive Order to prepare the nation to survive the effects of climate change.

Disaster–The Best Thing That Ever Happened

As a strategy guy, I have taken an interest in how the post-flood recovery is being handled in Alberta and I have come to a realization.

The flooding may be the best thing that ever happened to Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party. 

While the party would deny that they are taking advantage of the situation on the backs of citizens who got wiped out, any political strategist would call them foolhardy for not taking advantage of the situation.  That’s the way the game is played and historically, the common man has always born on their own backs the burden of those in power, whether it be a local event or a global war.

In a time of fiscal challenge in Alberta, Ms. Smith is walking the difficult walk of demanding that the government not spend money it doesn’t have while simultaneously insisting that citizens demand the right to be relocated by the government at the government’s expense.

Watching her in action at a town hall, it could be debated whether she is merely supporting the anger and frustration being experienced by the citizens or if she is actually fuelling it.  Anger is a very useful tool as I wrote about here Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

However, her seemingly two-faced strategy is strategically brilliant and demands an equally brilliant response from the current government.

To influence the mind, one must touch (or torch) the heart.

Is Ms. Smith ….

…. a hypocrite or a hero?

…. astute or asinine?

…. politically savvy, politically stupid or politically suicidal?

We will only know upon historical reflection.

The history books are written by the victors and within those pages, it will be revealed for whom the disaster really was the best thing …. or the worst.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

 

Addendum – July 29, 2013

A few readers reached out to me privately and asked if my comment “history books are written by the victors” was a veiled reference to Wildrose Party Press Secretary Vitor (Victor) Marciano and a future victory for the Wildrose Party.

I don’t make veiled references.  Nice try, though! :-)

Governments, Solutions and Citizen Expectations

As the Province of Alberta moves past the initial phase of shock and survival of the disastrous floods of 2013 and proceeds to recovery and rebuilding, the inevitable debates are arising as to which solutions will work best moving forward.

For people who wonder why solutions don’t manifest magically or why problems couldn’t have been prevented, whether for the flood in Alberta, the bankruptcy of Detroit, the decaying confidence of the US government at home and abroad, the struggling economy, etc., they should consider the following.

A simple, effective, proactive solution to prevent all of our problems in the future must factor in the following.

Definition and agreement upon the solution:

- Think it’s easy? Ask a bunch of kids to decide where they want to go for dinner.  Take that complexity and multiply it a bazillion-fold.

- Oftentimes, people can’t agree on the definition of the problem and so they never get to defining the solution.

- Who defines the group of people who define the problem and solution? That argument alone can take months or years to solve.

Assuming that a problem and solution have been identified, define  …

Solution cost:

- partial solution cost

- full solution cost

Risk of solution choice, accepting that cost is balanced against the risk of implementing / not implementing, return on investment, etc.:

- no solution

- a partial solution

- a full solution

Cost types including but not limited to:

- capital cost

- administrative cost

- social cost

- productivity cost

- GDP impact, nationally and internationally

- personal, national and international security cost

- individual, corporate and government privacy impact

- health of the individual and “the system”

- reputation cost

Reputation cost, many which are maddeningly difficult to measure yet impact us deeply, include but are not limited to:

– international

- national

- provincial / state

- city

- personal

- political

Voter satiation factors:

– what the voters say they want

- what the voters think they want

- what the voters actually need

Political perception:

– what the politician perceives as acceptable voter satiation levels

- what’s in it for the politician

- what’s in it for the organizations and groups that lobby governments incessantly

Then throw in ….

Climate change impact:

– regardless of whether manmade, naturally occurring or some combination

- we are spending more time arguing over the previous point than actually looking for measurable solutions that are known to be helpful

Global economic factors impact:

– too complex to understand, our economic engine has long outstripped the ability of its creator to control, direct or even predict the behavior of.  Don’t believe me?  Ask 10 economists what the key challenges of our present and future are and see how many opinions you will get.

- we are riding the wave, not controlling it, while providing a strong PR message that we are “in control”

Then sprinkle in …

Common human characteristics:

– fallibilities and frailties including fear, hesitation, greed, apathy, indifference, distrust, misdirected passion, dishonesty

- competing priorities / needs

- varying degrees of “what’s in it for me” or ‘not in my backyard”

Let’s not forget that …

The world changes incessantly:

- what we perceive the world to be today changes by the minute, and with ever-increasing speed, complexity, ferocity and impact, providing a moving target

We have multiple problems to solve, all equal in complexity and competing for the same, finite list of resources:

- in the areas of the economy, aging infrastructure, healthcare, social security, world peace, cultural differences, judicial concerns, poverty concerns, etc

It is easier to be an opposition party than the political party in power:

- they just need to spin how easy it is to fix everything, without explaining their strategic or tactical intentions or how they will pay for those intentions.  They count on the fact that citizens always ask “why” and “how do you know” of the party in power but rarely of the opposition party, with citizens easily falling susceptible to emotion-laden promises without any facts to back them up.

Then demand the solution be solved by …

Political will:

– balancing (hopefully) what the citizen needs versus what the politician desires (too often leaning towards the latter)

While still not forgetting that …

We still have to clean up the current mess, finding money that doesn’t exist for the current situation, let alone for the proposed solutions in the future:

- recognizing that the clean-up method chosen is impacted by the choices we are making for the future, making the current / future solutions somewhat linked together in a chicken and egg scenario

And expect it as soon as possible, as complete as possible, as simple as possible, as cheap as possible, as __________ as possible.

I guess it IS pretty simple, isn’t it.

Hardly.

And this was the simplified, 2%-of-the-problem definition.

Anyone who demands a quick, simple solution is deluded.

And any politician who makes it sound simple in a “my x steps to preventing this in the future” plan is either deluded or is assuming that you are.

I could have said “idiot” instead of “deluded” but that would be impolite and most people who are misinformed came by it honestly, through their genetics and life experiences.

If Life were as simple as “follow these x steps”, then our Life would already be problem-free.

And if the problems were “so easy” for some “experts” to have predicted in the first place when they present their master plan for the future, why didn’t they identify the problems before they manifested?  It’s like when a psychic greets you and asks “how can I help you?”.  Shouldn’t they already know? :-)

Meanwhile, the rest of us do the best we can with what we have to produce the best result possible.

And we keep an eye on what the future holds – good and bad.

Which camp are you in?

How do you know?

How do we know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

History–A Source of Entertainment, Not Knowledge

Many of us have heard the old adage (and the many variants thereof) that those who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it.

I wonder if the truest variant is Hegel’s when he said “history teaches us that history teaches us nothing.”

In the spirit that stories resonate better than facts and figures, I present the following illustrations that demonstrate Hegel’s point.

Natural Disasters

In the City of Calgary, despite the many politicians and other leaders who acted surprised about the floods, we have a few facts that we can’t deny.

1. The city has faced devastating floods repeatedly in its past and as recently as 8 years ago.

2. The areas stricken the most in each flood are built upon flood plains known to be at high risk of flooding.

3. The City and the Province knew the risks of building in high risk areas but permitted it for decades anyway, lighting the fuse on a time-bomb that keeps going off.

4. Some of the areas are so obviously at risk that a property buyer doesn’t need to be told that they are in risk of catastrophic loss but they buy the property anyway.  Some residents admitted that they have known the risk for years but decided to remain as they “waited for the government to fix things”.

So despite warnings, recommendations and the like in the past, status quo remains and construction will likely continue in high risk areas, threatening life and property in the future.

Meanwhile … in US politics

I find US politics to be a fascinating reflection on the electorate and a great source of support for Hegel’s thoughts on history.  Here are some examples.

1. Former South Carolina Governor  Mark Sanford was found guilty of a number of inappropriate actions as Governor and faced impeachment proceedings.  Despite being disgraced as Governor, abusing taxpayer funds, having an extramarital affair while in office and the like, he has now been re-elected as a Representative from South Carolina, thus demonstrating high levels of support for his “character and values”.

2. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner who was forced to resign from Congress for inappropriate texting of a body part that shares commonality with his last name is now a front runner in the NYC mayoral race (even as he warns that more photos of him may surface in the future).  I guess he is proof that if we choose to stick it out in times of adversity, rising to the occasion, we can overcome anything.

3. Former NYC Governor Elliot Spitzer, disgraced and removed from power in an escort scandal as well as a campaign contribution scandal, is now running for the office of NYC Comptroller.

4. Proving that life has its ironies, Kristin Davis, the madam who ran the organization that brought Mr. Spitzer down, is running against him for the same comptroller position after serving prison time for running her less-than-ideal organization.  Ironically, Mr. Spitzer did not receive any jail time for partaking of the services that Ms. Davis’ organization offered.

5. Jesse Jackson Jr. easily won re-election of his Congressional seat despite facing charges at the time of wire fraud, mail fraud, inappropriate use of campaign funds and a number of other things and while being off the campaign trail as he was treated for a number of “exhaustion” related mental and physical illnesses.  After being re-elected despite the charges against him, he plead guilty, with prosecutors recommending in June of 2013 that he be sentenced to 4 years in jail.

I could go on but the list is too long.  However, it is true that we get the government that we deserve, isn’t it? :-)

And then there is national security

Senior military officers and advisors to the US government warned leaders for years that one of the greatest threats to national security were foreign agents commandeering US commercial aircraft and flying them into American buildings and landmarks.  I was told of this as a civilian in the early 90’s so I suspect that it was known long before I was told.

Ahhhh …. the list is never ending.

Why we can’t find a better way to live?

Human beings have a great gift in our seemingly unlimited levels of resilience.  We appear to be able to overcome everything.

This ability to overcome almost anything thrown in our path is also our greatest weakness.  Our belief that we can overcome everything tends to make us play down prevention with the belief that we will do the best we can and just overcome whatever disaster befalls us.

Unfortunately, as I have seen in disaster preparedness meetings within organizations and governments, planners are paid to anticipate disasters far greater than anything citizens have experienced to-date or could even dream of.

Or would want to dream of.

Some of those disaster scenarios are in fact large enough to overcome even the greatest levels of human resilience.

Unfortunately, those same planners are hamstrung, knowing that they don’t have the money or other resources to deal with every threat and that to share the true threat levels with the world would paralyze everyone into fearing that “the ultimate disaster” is right around the corner.  The resulting panic that would ensue would create its own epic disaster.

And so the planners, advisors and leaders play the difficult game of balancing cost vs. risk while at the same time, keeping citizens contented and focused on ever-increasing consumption.

Interestingly, this ever-increasing consumption is building a new set of disasters for the planet but we don’t need to worry about those right now. 

After all, our children will be resilient enough to figure them out.

Won’t they???

Meanwhile, when the next disaster rolls around, which it will, we will fall back on our old standbys:

1. We will act surprised, supposedly caught off guard that we had no warnings that such an event was possible.

2. We will rise to the occasion, saving those who can be saved while we congratulate ourselves on our ingenuity for our quick response and our ability to create solutions on the fly.

3. We will get angry when we rediscover / relearn that this has happened before.

4. We will find someone else to blame.

5. We will demand action to prevent this from happening in the future.

6. We will go through the motions of doing something, analyzing data, creating reports and then burying them.

7. We will move on without actually changing anything.

8. We will get angry at anyone who points out how predictable we are as a species and how we keep repeating ourselves when it comes to disaster avoidance. We will also get angry at people who remind us that the world is not perfect and that merely thinking good thoughts is insufficient in creating a better world.

That’s assuming that the next challenge doesn’t overrun our level of resilience altogether.

Until then, history will serve as a source of entertainment and not as a warning to hold ourselves and our leaders to a higher level of accountability and preparedness.

And we will continue to ignore warnings, mainly because thinking about them disrupts what otherwise would be an easy Life for many of us.

Well … at least for now.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Personal Note:

When I first started working on “interesting projects” in the early 90’s, I acquired a very deep respect for the many planners out there who do the best they can with what they have so that we can be safe.  Few know of the sacrifices they make, especially in the areas of their own personal health and their family relationships, in performing the tasks that they do.

I was presenting at a conference a few years ago and I was speaking to a colleague about the struggles that I had with the things I had been exposed to over the years.  I figured that someone I looked up to and who had much more experience than I with these things would have some words of wisdom for how to deal with them.

When I asked the question “How do you deal with this information and how do you sleep at night knowing what you know?” his answer was very telling.

“I try not to stay sober”.

A sobering statement indeed.

Addendum – July 11, 2013

The CBC reported today that experts are warning us that damaging water events such as those that occurred in Alberta and Toronto in recent weeks will likely become more the norm and that we need to invest heavily in infrastructure in order to protect life and property moving forward.

This resonates with things that I and others have written in the past about global climate change.  Too many people are trying to prevent it when it is quite possible that it is not preventable, regardless of whether it is a natural cyclical event or a man-made one.

And when people spend all their time arguing about how to prevent what may be unpreventable instead of how to survive and thrive within it, they may be so busy (and so distracted) that they won’t see the event that overwhelms them.

Addendum – July 23, 2013

Case in point.  It was announced today that Anthony Weiner, while disgraced and chased from office in 2011, participated in a new round of inappropriate behavior during the summer of 2012.

Politics and the Fortuitousness of Calamity

Many have conjectured that Hurricane Sandy was the best thing that could have happened for President Obama’s re-election bid.  Some claim that his committed support to help the hurricane victims just as the national election in the US was rolling around tipped many on-the-fence voters over to the Democrat side.

People forget that this is what Presidents should do – show support in the time of need.

And if it serves a political need without making it look overly obvious, I’m sure some political pundits would say “Life does have its bonuses”.

The one thing that I appreciated about the President at the time was that he didn’t make his support a Democrat versus Republican thing.

It was the right thing to do as an American and as a human being.

I’m not so certain I see the same level of magnanimity in the actions of Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party.

The town of High River is in the middle of challenges, heroics, difficulties, frustrations and the complexities of rebuilding.

The official website for High River has been an excellent source of information for the residents as they rise again and move past the disaster that knocked them down momentarily.

The official disaster recovery website for the Alberta Government is also an excellent source of information, providing both its own information as well as links to other sources of information such as the High River site.

And yet I find it intriguing that Ms. Smith is promoting a different site as shown by a tweet she issued yesterday.

When one clicks on highriverflood.info (at least at the time this blog was written), one is redirected to Ms. Smith’s political page.

Now it’s true that when one scrolls down, one can see some of the same information that is available on other official sites.

However, the first thing one notes when going to the page Ms. Smith promotes is that it is heavily branded as a Wildrose site whereas the other official sites are politics-neutral.

Also, one’s eye is immediately drawn to the menu on the left.

Now one could assume that the links are for donating to the victims, volunteering to help out people in need during the flood, etc.

However, the donate link takes you here, requesting donations to the Wildrose Constituency Association:

And the volunteer link invites you to volunteer for the Wildrose Party for party events.

I guess people could click on the “reserve a sign” link, to reserve a lawn sign for the next election, but that implies that people have a lawn in High River to stick a sign on or that such things matter at a time when some people face a total loss, including irreplaceable items of family importance.

Ms. Smith is also suggesting on her Facebook page  that people should check out her coverage on Instagram  ….

so I popped over there.

The scrolling images at the top of her Instagram page included some for High River and two criticizing the government and Alberta Health Services as shown above.

Perhaps a new, fresh Instagram account would have been more appropriate that wasn’t bashing the government trying to help the people in need (note the comment on the Facebook page from a Facebook user concerned about Ms. Smith promoting a political and personal agenda and “Danielle Days”).

There’s a dirty little secret buried in this technique

It is a known psychological phenomenon that when one exposes people to specific information when those people are under duress, they are more susceptible to the information they are receiving and can be convinced to be in resonance with said information when they may not have been before.

Variants of this phenomenon, including capture–bonding psychological mechanisms, Stockholm Syndrome, military basic training and other concepts  illustrate the power of this type of technique.

Is the Wildrose Party intentionally using one of these techniques or a variant of them?

I guess it depends on how much credit one wishes to give them.

Maybe they just don’t know the difference.

Neither choice is very complimentary.

What’s sauce for the goose ….

Some Wildrose Party supporters have cried foul when their leader’s actions have been criticized in the last week.  Some have claimed that when she has taken actions that appear politically motivated and other people have pointed this out, that the people pointing it out should be criticized for making this a political event.

I don’t buy that at all.

It’s like saying that when a bully picks on a victim, the victim stands up to the bully and the bully runs around exclaiming that now they being picked on as a result.

Challenges doesn’t change people’s character – it reveals it

Events such as what is happening in Alberta and in especially hard hit areas like High River demonstrate the type of character that our society’s leaders are made of.

When I see grandstanding against groups like the RCMP when they were doing the best they could at the moment, when I see promotion of “the political colors”, etc., I see the creation of divisiveness and the promotion of self over service to others.

And I don’t think that is what anyone needs right now.

For people who claim that for me to say this is in fact creating divisiveness, I refer them back to my bully analogy.

I think that regardless of what a person tells us about their potential as a leader and what their ability / capability to lead is, the truth of the matter is that their actions speak so loudly that we often can’t hear what they say.

I think such actions clearly demonstrate whether a leader actually serves their constituents or pretends to with the intention of self-promotion / self-realization.

I also think these actions and not the words we are spoon fed during election campaigns are what we should use as the basis for choosing the leaders of our society.

And finally, I think that when people fall for empty words instead of making choices based on the actions of others, it  may also be a poor reflection on the people who follow their “leader” blindly.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – Canada Day - 2013

My final observation on Ms, Smith, leaving her to her self-promotion in the midst of the suffering of so many.  People can and should make their own informed decisions regarding the leadership potential of Ms. Smith.

Checking her tweets this morning produces this fascinating mix of tweets.

From top to bottom:

- a bashing of Alberta Health Services for doing their job of ensuring that proper food handling practices are in place (a violation of which could create a MUCH bigger problem in an already bad situation)

- a celebration of Canada Day to show she is patriotic

- a bashing of the RCMP for doing their job of confiscating firearms left abandoned and unsecured (and complaining to the Prime Minister about it)

- a tweet telling people that the website highriver.info contains today’s important announcements (along with a promotion of the Wildrose Party and an opportunity to donate financially to the Wildrose Party).

While she would never admit it publicly, the disaster in Alberta will serve Ms. Smith nicely when the legislature reopens for its next sitting.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure if the gains for her constituents in High River will be as personally satisfying or useful for them as the gains will be for Ms. Smith personally and professionally.

And when people don’t see the connection between a politician’s personal opportunity development on the backs of one’s constituents, it proves the old adage that voters get the representation that they deserve.

Today, we Canadians celebrate our freedoms and our democracy.  Actions such as hers, anti-police, anti-government (including when she suggested to striking corrections officers earlier this year to defy a government back-to-work order) and other such actions look like democracy to some but in some nations appear as an attempt to promote a different form of government.

But I’ll leave that to the conspiracy folks.

Happy Canada Day – better days are ahead for the great people of Alberta!

Addendum – July 4, 2013

I am delighted to see that Ms. Smith’s recent social media posts are now focused on recovery and rebuilding for the great people in High River and less on self promotion.  Whether she changed her messages for political reasons or she and / or her staff realized that earlier messages were inappropriate, the focus has returned to helping the people of High River build a stronger future.  Either way, my concerns as well as the concerns expressed by others probably had some influence, a demonstration that exercising one’s voice in a democracy still works.

Addendum – July 28, 2013

The flooding may be the best thing that ever happened to Danielle Smith and the Wildrose Party.  While the party would deny that they are taking advantage of the situation on the backs of citizens who got wiped out, any political strategist would call them foolhardy for not taking advantage of the situation.

In a time of fiscal challenge in Alberta, Ms. Smith is walking the difficult walk of insisting that the government not spend money it doesn’t have while insisting that citizens demand the right to be relocated by the government.

Hypocrite or hero?

Astute or asinine?

Politically savvy or stupid?

We will only know upon historical reflection.

And the history books are written by the victors.

Leadership–When the Rules Don’t Apply To Us

** See below the original post for important updates to this blog , particularly the revision from the Canadian Press.**

I was in a business establishment this morning and and observed an event that started out as curious (almost humorous) but could have ended up being more more serious.

An individual parked a very long pickup truck / trailer combination in front of the business and went inside.  I guess he assumed that the “No Parking – Fire Lane” signs that he parked in front of didn’t apply to him.

A customer inside the business establishment watched the driver enter, shook his head with an obvious sign of agitation and then got up and went out to the vehicle (which was still running).

He entered the vehicle, put it in gear and pulled it ahead to the parking lot and got out.

Meanwhile, the returning driver saw his truck moving and ran over to the other person, cursing and swearing profusely.

While I won’t repeat the profanity laced argument that ensued before the driver got in his vehicle and drove away, it could best be summarized as this:

Driver: You have no right to move my vehicle. That is theft and is against the law.

Customer: You have no right parking a vehicle in a fire lane and so I moved it.

Driver: That has nothing to do with anything. Driving my truck is theft of private party.

The argument went on for about five minutes and just as I realized that a call to 911 might be warranted to prevent a violent act, the driver drove off.

While the customer who moved the truck may not have been in the right by taking the law into his own hands in moving the vehicle, the driver did not see how his actions were wrong either.

Meanwhile on a more serious level

And then I thought of the devastating disaster in High River.  With the town under a mandatory evacuation order for flooding, Danielle Smith, Official Leader of the Opposition of the Alberta Legislature, defied the order “in order to save pets”.

Some folks on Twitter called her on this ….

To which Ms. Smith replied ….

Just as the driver of the vehicle in the incident that I observed believed he was above the law for his own reasons, it appears that Ms. Smith, a senior politician, was also able to rationalize how she was above the law.

It wouldn’t have been so funny if suddenly she were in danger and first responders had to put their Life on the line in order to rescue her.

It also wouldn’t have been so funny if hundreds or thousands of residents of High River had followed her lead and stayed behind, potentially turning a very bad situation into an even worse situation.

If Ms. Smith had been Premier, helping establish the laws of the province instead of breaking  them, I don’t think she would have been amused if someone else had defied the evacuation order.

Given that a leader is commonly defined as someone who influences others, we are all leaders in society, no matter how wide or deep we believe our influence to be.

As a result of this, we need to make sure that our actions are commensurate with what others expect of us and what we expect others may do as a result of observing our actions.

Otherwise, the leadership we are exhibiting may fall far short of what others need and expect of us or it may create a world of trouble for others.

When it comes to leadership, challenging times don’t change or form our leadership abilities – they reveal them.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum:

It is not my interest to make “political hay” in the middle of a disaster.  However, Ms. Smith has chosen to transform this event into an opportunity for personal political gain by criticizing others and therefore also opens the door to being critiqued.

During difficult times as Alberta is experiencing right now, we count on people to follow the guidance and direction of those who are in charge of our safety.  It is not the time to challenge those directives, especially when someone challenging those directives is a member of the provincial legislative body that is issuing those directives in the first place.

After all, when Ms. Smith demands on June 25th that people be allowed to return to High River as she does here and she complains about how the government in Edmonton is covertly determining the future of High River residents as she does here (comments made without respect for the importance of due process) she is not helping restore order. 

The Town of High River announced on June 26th that High River is too dangerous to enter and the announcement below shows that a mandatory evacuation order still exists as of the time this blog was posted.

What is also fascinating is how she is demanding that some residents be allowed to return to High River while at the same time, she is retweeting (as noted in the Twitter capture earlier in this blog) the AB Emergency Alert that asks all people to stay out of High River.

I guess that’s what’s called “covering your bases”. :-)

Due process exists for the safety of all residents and has few if any shortcuts.

It could be posited that Ms. Smith is whipping up frustration and hysteria instead – actions which serve her needs but not the needs of the people of High River.

What kind of leader who claims to serve the people does this?

Addendum 2 – June 26, 2013

I have been contacted by Wildrose Party officials who have offered to provide me with information that will, according to those officials, clarify specific items referenced in this post.  If and when I receive such information, I will review it and take appropriate actions if warranted.

Addendum 3 – June 28th, 2013 – Canadian Press Revision

I reached out to the Canadian Press directly to ask them about their reports that Ms. Smith was in High River in violation of the mandatory evacuation order (information that myself and others in part based our observations on).  They offered this clarification to correct their original reporting:

“The Canadian Press sent by email Thursday to online clients a full version of the original story, with the appropriate changes made to take out the incorrect information.

…….

She was actually in High River for four days after the flood helping rescue pets. She worked through the emergency operations centre under a pass that let her come and go from the community”

In addition to the incorrect reporting by the Canadian Press initially, this confusion would have been defused quickly if Ms. Smith, when queried about allegedly violating evacuation orders, had replied that she was in High River with permission instead of insulting people by saying things like “you obviously don’t have pets”.  To provide clarification days after the event is too late to have avoided the initial confusion and reflects poorly on the Opposition Leader’s communication skills.  It wasn’t  a question of not having the time since she had plenty of time to tweet pictures of people’s pets.  Communication in regards to this event and the choices she made as to what she communicated come down to a question of priorities and not time availability.

This is what happens when someone is used to communicating for incendiary purposes and not for the purposes of clarity.  For this reason, the blog remains as a warning of the confusion that ensues when leaders don’t communicate well (for whatever reason).

Tweets exchanges like this ….

and this ….

in regards to the firearms seized by RCMP are also poorly worded, not defusing the anger regarding incidents as described here where some residents compared the RCMP actions with Nazi Germany.

A more appropriate wording would have been along the lines of “I’m sure the RCMP did what they thought was the right thing to do at the moment and we will endeavor to have firearms returned to their owners as soon as possible.  There are many important things that need to be prioritized at this time.” 

Even the Premier has expressed concern about how this incident is being blown out of context in comparison to more important things that need to be addressed.

Ms. Smith has a considerable ways to go in order to create calm in a population desperate for it.

High River has begun the process of allowing people back in their homes.  Clarity, collaboration, communication and community spirit will carry them through a difficult time.  Better days lay ahead for the wonderful people of High River.

Alberta Floods and Human Resilience

As we catch our breath and begin the task of rebuilding in Calgary and Alberta after the worst floods in our recorded history, many of my colleagues have reached out to me and pointed out that I seem to always be in the middle of the action.

In reflection, they are right.  I’ve been in cities during the worst earthquake in their recorded history, had a tornado touch down a block from me while out for a walk in the rain, filmed another one forming directly overhead that left me seeking cover and arrived in a city days before one of the worst hurricanes in its history.

I watched the World Trade Center burn from around the corner of my office in New York, taking the lives of 15 of my friends and now I find myself in Calgary watching the worst flood in its history.

As I thought about this, I also reflected on being in the middle of all of those events and never suffering a scratch.

Well … at least not physically anyway.

I will admit that as the list of events grows longer, the visceral, emotional impact grows with each one when I watch the innocent and the helpless suffer.

There are two other emotions that grow as well

One is that my respect and gratitude for first responders; police, fire, EMS, military and all those who coordinate their efforts, grows deeper with every event.  I am reminded yet again of the love, the bravery, the unselfishness, the teamwork and the spontaneous leadership that is demonstrated when these events unfold.  Watching the men and women in action over the last couple of days in Calgary and Alberta makes you want to run over and hug one, take them out to dinner on-the-spot or express thanks in any way possible.

It is deeply humbling to know that a complete stranger is willing to put their own life on the line for our safety, even as their own family and property may be in jeopardy … and all without a tangible reward or prize at the end for their efforts outside of the pride they feel in knowing that they got the job done that they have spent a lifetime training for.

Sometimes, as in the case of the fire company that I used to walk past every day going to work that was completely wiped out in the World Trade Center, you don’t get to say thank you when the event is all over.

Not in this lifetime anyway.

The other emotion is one of growing concern.

In a world that is at its peak in known history in the areas of technology, communication, transportation, food production and other areas essential to human safety, I believe we are also at our most vulnerable point in our history.

In the comfort that many of us live in, we as individuals are the least prepared in our known history to take care of ourselves and those around us.  We have become a society that relies on the bravery of strangers.

We also rely on technology that may not be there to help us as I mused upon the other day in Disaster: How Prepared Are We Really?

Sadly in today’s world, when people like myself or others muse upon the need for citizens to be better prepared for emergency, whether a natural disaster or a manmade one, we get chided for being a downer or for being crazy.  We also draw attention from certain enforcement agencies who think “Oh … what is this guy participating in?”.

Even blogs as benign as this one will draw extra blog hits from some of those special agencies.  It can be discouraging for some to know that the act of being prepared for disaster can be misinterpreted as preparing to create one.

I mused to someone yesterday that roughly 10% of Calgary’s population needed to be relocated while the other 90% was able to help.  Where would we be if those two stats were reversed?  How well would things have gone if communication or electricity had failed totally within the last couple of days?

As usual, we pat ourselves on the back regarding our ingenuity and prepare to move on, falsely claiming that it was pretty much under control and that we were never in any real, large-scale danger.

Also as usual, our confidence would be diminished if we acknowledged how lucky we were.

Being prepared is not the same as being paranoid

Well … for most of us anyway. :-)  Some people are over the top and I think this discourages other people from being prepared for fear of being associated with “the loonies”.

There are many fine organizations out there who specialize in helping people prepare for disaster.  Governments also have a wealth of information available for us to learn from.

One thing that history teaches us is that disasters are inevitable.  Governments and other agencies spend a lot of time and money planning to prevent or survive them.  Having sat in on many of these planning sessions, I know that citizens would be disturbed to learn that in the government planning sessions, governments have the difficult task of accepting that they can’t save everyone and they build their plans accordingly.  It would be equally disturbing to know which camp, saveable or not, each of us are considered to be in.

The least we can do for ourselves, our families, our community, our nation and the world is to do our best as individuals to prepare for them also.

And in the meantime, find a first responder and give them the biggest thank you that you can muster.

Because for now, their bravery and sacrifice are what transforms disaster into miracles of rescue, into stories of hope and the promise of a better day.

We don’t overcome this stuff because we are Calgarians, Albertans, New Yorkers or anything else.

We do it because we are human and when the chips are down, overcoming difficulty is when we are at our finest.

Let’s do our part to make sure that the next test of our resilience is not our last.

I’d like to close with Adam Sandler’s song that he sang at the 121212 event after Hurricane Sandy devastated New York, New Jersey and the surrounding area.  Sometimes humor can carry you through difficult moments when you wonder if you have anything left.

Warning: “Delicate” language. :-)

For people who ask “what are the odds this could happen to me”, for those who have experienced disaster, the answer is 100%.  And as one fire chief joked on the radio yesterday, in his five years as chief, he has experienced “the flood of the century” each of the last four years in a row.

How prepared are you in the event of disaster, manmade or otherwise?

What does the answer to the previous question compel you to do, if anything?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – June 24, 2013

As is often the case, in the event post mortem that is starting to develop we discover that the Alberta flood event didn’t come without some warnings in the past as noted here.  The government study with recommendations described in the news report was released after the last major flood event in Calgary in 2005.

Maybe we need to pay more attention to such warnings.  Unfortunately, when it comes to such things, when balancing risk versus cost, we usually accept the risk.  Sometimes we get lucky – sometimes we don’t.

I am reminded yet again of the words of my former father-in-law (now deceased), a decorated USAF colonel and war hero.  In 1991, he told me that within circles of senior military officials and advisors to the President, the greatest perceived threat to national security were terrorist groups commandeering commercial aircraft and using them against domestic targets.  What ensued 10 years later changed America and the world forever.

We acted surprised then also.

Addendum – June 25, 2013

From the “history teaches us that history teaches us nothing” department, Alberta Environment Minister McQueen indicated today that the province will not consider restricting new development on flood plains at this time.  While it is too early to decide what restrictions should be in place, it is also too early to say that they will not consider restricting it.

If such an intention is carried out, new development replacement is condemned to be carried at the expense of the insurance companies (should they decide to offer flood insurance) or the municipal, provincial and federal governments.

And a future flood disaster is a “when” and not an “if” if other risk mitigation strategies aren’t put into effect.

Addendum – July 14, 2013

The Province of Alberta has released new information regarding the Disaster Recovery Program which I believe represents a balanced, intelligent approach to covering people against losses moving forward and basically provides what the auto insurance industry would describe as “first accident forgiveness”.

Basically if the homeowner accepts compensation now but remains in a known flood risk area, they are ineligible for compensation against future incidents.  If a homeowner is in a fringe flood area, accepts compensation now and chooses not to take appropriate risk mitigation steps to protect against future loss, they are also ineligible for compensation against future incidents.  Finally, homeowners seeking to move out of high-risk flood areas will be provided with financial assistance to move to a safer area.

Fair – balanced – forward thinking.

A rare move from any government and deserving of kudos.

Addendum – July 28, 2013

Sadly, many people who are not in designated flood zones got wiped out and are in danger of being wiped out in the future, leaving a gap in the Disaster Recovery Program that needs to be addressed.  These residents want the right to be relocated since the flood zone maps are clearly out of date.  Can you blame them?

Disaster: How Prepared Are We Really?

In the midst of the flooding going on in Alberta today, I was surprised (and not) to see tweets similar to the following:

… and this reference on the Calgary emergency response website (red highlighting is mine):

Even relying on third party services like Twitter for emergency communication can produce problems like this one below (especially poignant when towns like High River suggested that people get their updates from places like Twitter because their town website went down due to traffic overload as noted in a previously shown tweet):

As a ham radio operator and being trained in emergency communication, I have always had a worry about our communication network (including cellphones, landlines and the Internet) and its inability to serve our needs during times of emergency – the one time when we really need it.

During 9/11, our telephone network (cell and landlines) collapsed in a combination of infrastructure loss as the World Trade Center collapsed plus capacity overload as everyone reached for a phone.

More recently, during the Boston Marathon bombing, cellphone service also became disrupted as first responders, runners, bystanders, family members of runners / bystanders and everyone else hit the network.  Conspiracy people were disappointed to hear that the US government had indeed not shut down the network as some believed.

It just got overloaded.

The bottom line is that our communication and information systems are built only to serve a certain percentage of users at once and for the foreseeable future, this is the way it will remain.  Unfortunately, the cost and energy required to build networks that can withstand 100% of the users that it serves will always be prohibitive barring new discoveries in cheaper, lower-footprint technology.

Also unfortunately, when emergencies hit we will always get a lot more users on our communication and information infrastructure than the infrastructure was designed for, resulting in communication difficulties or outright failures.

This doesn’t just prevent us from being able to reach a loved one.  Such communication difficulties may also impact first responders who are relying on the same technology in certain situations as the afore mentioned tweet proves.

The bottom line is this.

Lives could be at stake as a result - the lives of you, your family and others.

And since communication is one of the primary needs during an emergency (besides critical items such as shelter, medical supplies, food and water), one has to ask one’s self:

If a widespread emergency should strike my area tomorrow, what communication mechanisms can I count on to reach out to others to make sure they are ok, to let others know that I am ok, to call for help or to offer help.

If you can’t answer that question, then perhaps you should explore your options.

Governments have and continue to work on contingency plans in the event of disaster – natural or manmade.

The onus is on us as citizens to contribute to this planning process as much as possible and to do whatever we can to minimize our exposure to concerns of personal safety.

The day may come when we reach for our phone when we really need it and nobody will be on the other end.

What will you do for yourself or your family then?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Note:

A special word of thanks to the brave men and women who are serving the needs of the many who are affected by this storm.  Where would we be without their brave, unselfish efforts?

My comments regarding strained infrastructure today are not a criticism of the people who own the infrastructure.  They did the best they could with what they have.  My point is that we all need to step up to help them in order to assure all of our safety.

A Warning:

This is also a sobering reminder of what can be produced by Mother Nature.  Is it any wonder that certain governments are researching ways of controlling weather for the purposes of using Mother Nature as a weapon?

Addendum – June 24, 2013

As is often the case, in the event post mortem that is starting to develop we discover that the Alberta flood event didn’t come without some warnings in the past as noted here.  The government study with recommendations described in the news report was released after the last major flood event in Calgary in 2005.

Maybe we need to pay more attention to such warnings.  Unfortunately, when it comes to such things, when balancing risk versus cost, we usually accept the risk.  Sometimes we get lucky – sometimes we don’t.

I am reminded yet again of the words of my former father-in-law (now deceased), a decorated USAF colonel and war hero.  In 1991, he told me that within circles of senior military officials and advisors to the President, the greatest perceived threat to national security were terrorist groups commandeering commercial aircraft and using them against domestic targets.  What ensued 10 years later changed America and the world forever.

We acted surprised then also.

Addendum – June 25, 2013

From the “history teaches us that history teaches us nothing” department, Alberta Environment Minister McQueen indicated today that the province will not consider restricting new development on flood plains at this time.  While it is too early to decide what restrictions should be in place, it is also too early to say that they will not consider restricting it.

If such an intention is carried out, new development replacement is condemned to be carried at the expense of the insurance companies (should they decide to offer flood insurance) or the municipal, provincial and federal governments.

And a future flood disaster is a “when” and not an “if” if other risk mitigation strategies aren’t put into effect.