Both Margaret Thatcher and Bette Davis shared the sentiment that "home" is where you go if you have nothing better to do or nowhere else to go. Shaw seemed to think of it as either a prison or a workhouse, at least for females.
Shows what they know. For me, coming home is luxury. I'll tell you a secret: no matter where I go, no matter how much I love it there, I always love coming home. I love sleeping in my own bed. I love sitting on my couch, by myself, when its peaceful and quiet. I love it when the low-angle sun streams in on winter morning, I love it on dark nights like tonight, I love it when I hear the rain hammer on the metal roof.
Much as I like going to visit people, I like it best when they come to visit me.
Surely, no doubt, I wouldn't feel this way if I didn't go away as often as I did. I would miss traveling (though not airports, or planes). I would be very sad if I had to stay here, in this home, for a whole month. But it's pretty wonderful to have a place you want to come back to.
--
It's been one of the most stressful months of my life, and there are few signs that it's letting up in the near future. Tonight, I came home after an exhausting day, with a briefcase full of work. I didn't do any of it. I turned on the Christmas lights (hung this weekend, while listening to Eleanor Wachtel discuss The Year of Magical Thinking with Joan Didion on my radio. I am so happy CBC Radio exists too), I poured a glass of wine, and I sat on my couch. It's not a particularly great couch, this is a tiny apartment as far as apartments go (with the exception of the bathroom, you can see *all* of it in these two pictures), but it makes me happy.
The first real snow storm of the season, and I couldn't be happier. I've been grinning since I woke up to snow outside my window. I was happy brushing the white stuff off my car. I listened to the reports of 1200 CAA service calls and 130 accidents in the Greater Toronto Area, and started my car, and thought, "not me!". Really, I sound like I'm jinxing it... but as I drove over slush-covered roads and passed the plow, which hadn't done that much by way of snow clearing on my commute yet, all I could think was, winter tires rock my world. The difference really is that big. Bad roads will no longer be a reason for working at home (wait a minute... I *like* the work at home days!).
Yeah, I drive to work. 22 km of driving each way, every day, except when I'm travelling or those rare days when I want some uninterrupted hours to focus on something at home, or a few (too few) days in the summer when I ride my bike. Virtually every day, I'm the only person in my car (not today, though, I gave Benedicte a ride to the university, meaning I had someone to enthuse to about how great the tires are!). I'm lucky in my commute in that I have no major highway, just back roads - and even on those, I'm going against the flow of traffic. This was amply evident in where the snow was already a slushy mess and where it was still snow today. People generally go towards Toronto, not away from it. So I can usually listen to Jim Curran tell us where traffic is nasty, and not worry about it.
However, I've driven into (and through) the city enough to know that there is no good time to go there anymore, as far as traffic is concerned. There will always be a slowdown somewhere, even at two at night. Even on Sunday mornings. Our solutions are, of course, frequently in the more of the same category. For example, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association just called for six lanes on Highway 401 all the way from Toronto to Windsor, and eight lanes on Highway 400 to Barrie, and so on. Given current growth rates - almost 10% increase in population in the Greater Toronto area over the last census period - there would have to be constant highway building to keep up. Add to that the fact that the growth has been concentrated in the suburbs (the old City of Toronto has the lowest growth rate of the GTA) where a car is almost mandatory, and the longer distance travelled from suburbs, and it's no surprise that we have this pattern emerging. There is more driving on GTA roads than ever.
So I welcome the news that, as of this week, there are new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, commonly known as carpool lanes, on two of our superhighways. The idea is that these new lanes (not conversion of existing lanes, at least not yet) are only available to cars with two or more people in them. Which really isn't that many people, now, is it? But it's one more than is usually in my car. We've had diamond lanes/carpool lanes for years, but new is that these are on provincial highways. It's so new, actually, that - and they're not telling you this on the radio yet - it's not enforcable! First, Bill 169 must pass! But, a very small step in the right direction.
However, this reminds me of the push to "reduce, reuse, recycle" in the early 90s - conveniently forgetting "reject" as the fourth R. We're still not pushing to get away from the personal automobile (and the transport truck) as much as we need to. If you go to the Ministry of Transportation site linked above, you'll see a graphical representation of number of cars on the road with and without carpool lanes that are equivalent to a single bus. *One* bus. Buses are good. Trains are better. Me, I love trains, but you know, it's a major pain in the butt to go downtown on the GO, because there are not enough trains - neither in number of cars on trains, and particularly not by schedule. I can travel into the city during rush-hour in the morning, and out during afternoon rush hour. Otherwise, I am stuck with a painfully slow milk-run bus. Not good enough.
It's not much better in the city these days either. We hear the reports of TTC ridership being up 10 million passengers for 2005, of people having to wait for several trains to go by before being able to get on at rush hour, of the TTC running out of monthly passes (and not having a strategy to make more). And the TTC, it says the subway is already running at capacity, they simply can't put more trains on. I've always found Toronto's sad three-line subway system to be an embarrassment for a city that likes to call itself "world class". How can it be that we have one of the 30 busiest airports by passenger volume in the world, and yet a subway system that is pathetic compared to most mid-size European cities? How can it be that we *still* don't have a high-speed rail link (or *any* rail link, for that matter) between Toronto Pearson International Airport (that's its full title!) and Union Station? Why would I have to ride the subway to Lawrence West or Kipling and then transfer to a bus? The overcrowded subway, with luggage... To get from my home to the airport takes maybe 45 minutes in a car, unless there is traffic gridlock. To get there using public transit, I would have to drive to Milton, catch a GO train if I'm lucky enough to be at the right time (35 minutes to Kipling Station). If it's not train time, there's no stop at Kipling, so I'll have to get off at Dixie, and take two buses to Kipling - or go all the way to Union Station, take the Yonge-University Line, transfer to the Bloor Line, and go to Kipling. Best case scneario to get from Milton to Kilpling would be an hour, I'd think, if I get off at Dixie, otherwise, an hour an a half easy. Then, I can travel to Bus Line 192 ("the rocket") and travel 20 minutes to the airport - if there's no traffic snarls. That takes me to Terminal 2, so I make my way to ground level and take the terminal shuttle to Terminal 1, because that's where almost all my flights depart from. So, even if I do this at the very best time, I'm looking at 90 minutes if I make all connections seamlessly - and there are connections waiting. Realistically, I'd have to count on two hours at the best times, three at most others. And a lot of transfers, with luggage. That's why I take an expensive, car-based shuttle or drive.
And I go to the airport a lot. I did a quick calculation yesterday. In 2005, I will have flown well over 100,000 km, and that's just using the point to point distance between airports, all waiting loops and extra distance from planes not taking off in the most efficient direction of travel most of the time are unaccounted for in my math. That's the equivalent of circling the entire globe two and a half times, at the equator! That's 43 takeoffs, 43 landings, and well over 43 cups of airline coffee (except on the transatlantic redeye where there was no coffee! because the machines were all broken, they said!)
I was not less happy with my life a year ago today, and yet, my life is so much richer now than then. And while I could tell you about some of the wonderful people who I’ve met in the last months, this entry is about something much shallower than that: stuff!
It’s that time of year, when the pressure to buy presents manifests itself in full parking lots every weekend. I haven’t actually experienced that yet, because I’ve yet to even consider doing anything nice for anyone in my life. But I was reminded of this whole seasonal loot-bagging today, when I had to hear Christmas carols in the grocery store. It’s just a matter of time until I bust out the Boney M Christmas album and go into a frenzy of buying stuff on-line and hoping it gets delivered in time. In the meantime, I shall continue to be focused on myself, and share with you my list of stuff that made my life a little bit brighter this past year. Think of it as Johanna’s version of that page in Oprah magazine where she’s telling you that buying new crap to decorate your already full of stuff house will make your life richer. This is my public service announcement for all of you who are stumped for presents. Because all of these, they’re good presents! Or they would have been, if somebody had given them to me, instead of me buying them for myself!
1. New winter tires. They’re the newest of all my stuff, having only entered my life yesterday. They make me happy every time I look at them. I shall now be invincible. I am ready for snow!
2. Wellies. You know, rubber boots. Mine sit right outside my door, and I gleefully stomp through the big smelly puddles on my way to deposit the compost on the manure pile.
3. James Blunt’s album. I’ve listened to it at least 60 times, ever since I bought it the day it came out after hearing Errol Nazareth review it on Metro Morning.
4. the Exped Downmat. Making Georgian Bay rocks feel like a bed. A very narrow and noisy bed that you have to pump full of air every night, true, but it’s till been the year of better camping sleeps than ever.
5. My reindeer toque. It is grey and white and has a bell and I bought it in Finland. It jingles jauntily when I bounce along, making the probability of bouncing all the more likely. Plus, I love the word toque, and I love toques. Even if they make me feel like a gnome.
6. My garden gnome! I wouldn’t love him if people didn’t keep making fun of him, but just for that, it’s me and the gnome against the world.
7. the wifi finder. I’ve only used it to find free wireless access once, but I like *having* it. It’s just intrinsically cool. Maybe because it’s so nerdy, but it’s a fine line, isn’t it?
8. A big, baby blue, oversized bathrobe. I always loved the huge hotel bathrobes that make you feel like having a nap in puffy towel. So I got my own!
There you go, eight pieces of consumer good that make me happy and are new to me; all readily available at an on-line retailer near you. Or even the mall, if you want to jostle your way through.
It's been 13 years since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was drafted and adopted by a majority of industrialized and developing nations. It's been 11 years since these same nations - and a handful of later comers - have ratified the Convention.
Here, Johanna's quick and dirty summary of what the UNFCCC means:
Let's protect the climate system, based on the best of our abilities - that is, the more resources you have to cut down on pollution, the more you need to do so. While the adverse effects of climate change affect the planet as a whole, the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to this can be traced back primarily to a small portion of us. Thus, developing countries - say, for instance, small island states - may share very little of the "blame" (or, as I prefer, may have received very few of the benefits associated with the rise in our standard of living and consequent consumption which helped get us here), and have fewer opportunities to do something about it. Thus, it's not enough to just worry about halting a possibly impossible to stop process of climate change, we need to concurrently think about sustainable development and equity. This is particularly important since the other half of the climate change problem is not about stopping climate change but adapting to it, and one of the keys to dealing with the adverse impacts of climate change is economic development. Furthermore, we shall not hide behind the "but you can't *prove* that my belching factory is causing climate change" statistical wrangling (ahem, neighbours south of the borders...), because, in the language of the UNFCCC, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing precautionary measures which, on the one hand, slow down the problem, and, on the other, help us deal with the likely outcomes of it.
The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, and "ratified", for those of us who are mystified, means binding yourself to its terms. The U.S. ratified on October 15, 1992. Just a comment.
But, we're all agreed on "let's play nice and watch out for the weaker players". But your definition of "nice" and "watch out" may not be the same as mine. In other words, these amorphous terms of the UNFCCC - preventing dangerous impacts, taking lead responsibility and so on - they're the language of international negotiations, and when somebody doesn't like a word in negotiations, it gets taken out until you're left with vanilla pudding. So the next step was to *do* something, make a *real* commitment.
That's where Kyoto, or, more properly, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, comes in. The Kyoto Protocol is not that complicated: all it asks is that we, as a planet, reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases by just over five percent over 1990 levels - keep in mind that, by 1990, we had *already* reached scientific consensus that there was a human-induced signature in climate change (the scientists who are the darlings of a certain administration for trumpeting that you can't "prove" that or that it's simply "not true" notwithstanding - besides, see clause on lack of scientific certainty). So all Kyoto really did was ask the countries who had so happily ratified the UNFCCC to pretty please come up with a plan to walk the walk after talking the talk. By late 2004, 55% of the ratifying countries had signed on to Kyoto, meaning the treaty came into effect this year.
And what's happened? Well, bugger all, as far as I can tell. We've got some powerhouses who think very little of international consensus and very much of their own "proof" regardless of whether or not the UN concurs (I'm looking south *again*) saying, nope, not playing with *that*, we're all for playing nice but nobody told us we'd have to let other people play in the sandbox! And so we keep tinkering with the UNFCCC amendments, and haggling over just what is meant by "adverse impact" (because," it might threaten people's livelihoods", that's apparently not clear enough) and so forth, and really, it's kind of cool to have these big-deal Conference of the Parties meetings every year since the UNFCCC was ratified. It gets you to places, you know: Milan, Buenos Aires, Delhi, Bonn, the Hague, Morocco... and this year, Montreal, later this month.
Except this year, it's different. This is the first Conference of the Parties meeting since Kyoto came into effect. So it's not just CoP, it's MoP, that is, "Meeting of the Parties". Whatever that means - I certainly can't tell from the agenda I've seen. I also know that we, Canada, sure haven't done our share on the emissions reduction, even if we *did* sign. After all, instead of a five percent redution over 1990, we've got a 24% *increase* in GHG emissions by 2003. I know that some of the powerhouse polluters didn't even sign. Did you know that the U.S. is the single largest polluter in the world, that GHG emissions from that one country are about a third higher than *all* of the European Union and *five times* as high as the next biggest polluter, Japan? So where do we go now?
I know. We remember that other half of the UNFCCC - you know, how the first half said, don't put so much crap out there, and the second half was, do what we can to make sure the crap that is out there doesn't hurt us too much? The help us deal wit the likely outcomes of it? The adaptation part? The part that has become more important than ever given the apparent failure of the reduction of greenhouse gases strategy espoused by Kyoto? The part that the US is also a signatory to?
Yeah. What are we doing here? Bugger all, too, it seems, we're so fixed on the one bit that - though a noble and very,very important initiative - isn't working so well, and forgetting that it has a very neglected twin. And you'd think that we, Canada, as an acknowledged rich country, as the host to this event, as one of the ones who *said* we'll walk the walk, and as a nation that has its own disproportionately affected in farmers at the margins of production and indigenous people dependent on sea ice and all that, we really can - and should - be doing more. Let's get to the doing, then, shall we?
And, if you want the data, go here to download the Greenhouse Gas Emissions data report. But if it makes you depressed, well, don't blame me.
It's not like November wasn't already a depressing month. I'll leave you with a chunk of Wordsworth:
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.
Ok, I have to admit, I've been fitter than I am these days. However, even at my fittest, I don't think I ever made it up the big scary hill on Appleby Line on my bike without getting off and pushing. I mean, you might as well strap on climbing shoes, because you're going straight up.
And maybe I have to admit that I have a tendency to exaggerate, too. But still, it's a big hill, and when I was trying to sell Kevin on how good the roads are for cycling around here, I tried to impress him with, there's a hill not even you can make it up. Well. Turns out, when somebody thinks "vacation" is synonymous with cycling tours in the tropics that are rated "extreme challenge" due to the big bike-munching hills, maybe the Appleby Line hill is not so scary. I even suspected that there was a possibility that I would be the only one forced to get off my bike, so when we actually went on a ride on Saturday, I made sure we 
put about 40 km behind us before springing the hill on Kevin so he'd be a little tired (I suspect he knew what I was up to there, because after 30 km, he said, so where's this hill anyway...)
So. There was the hill. Despite following Kevin's advice to get into my granniest of granny gears before I hit it (though I only went to second-granniest gear, my 
chain tends to slip in the lowest one and then I can't unclip and I faceplant on the road, and in the grand scheme of certainly having to get off and walk anyway and almost certainly faceplanting and *then* walking, I chose the option without the faceplant) I was walking by the first bend in the road. By the second, I was breathing heavily. Kevin was way out of sight by this time. By the third bend in the road, he was back in sight - casually cruising down, looking like he hadn't broken a sweat, saying something like, so where's the hill... and while I slowly 
pushed my way to the top, he went all the way to the bottom again and then came back up. This time, though, he'd at least lost the toque, so maybe he did break a sweat. Maybe.
So... one of us earned his beer that day anyway. Not that not conquering anything stopped me from drinking some too. Hey, I tried... and I don't suck at drinking beer, so I needed to build up my self esteem again...