Inhale, Exhale, Pause, Consider: Perish The Thought

"[The projectile was] Russian-made [either a missile or a rocket most likely fired accidentally] by Ukrainian anti-aircraft defence [not Russia]."

"What happened was an isolated incident [an investigation is underway]."

"There is no indication that more will take place."

"Ukraine's defence was launching their missiles in various directions and it is highly probable that one of these missiles unfortunately fell on Polish territory."

"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that it was an intentional attack on Poland."

Polish President Andrzej Duda

"[I have[ no doubts [about a report from top commanders] that it wasn't our missile or our missile strike."

"Let's say openly, if, God forbid, some remnant [of Ukraine air defences] killed a person, these people, then we need to apologize."

"But first there needs to be a probe, access -- we want to get the data you have."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

"[We reject Poland's and other countries' initial response. President Biden's] restrained, much more professional reaction] is more acceptable. [The U.S. had been] measured [and] professional [in its response.]"

"We have witnessed another hysterical, frenzied Russo-phobic reaction that was not based on any real data."

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov

 

"This is not Ukraine's fault."

"Russia bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war."

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg

Police run a check point outside the scene in Przewodow, Poland, where authorities in Warsaw say a Russian-made missile struck its territory, killing two civilians.

Omar Marques | Getty Images News | Getty Images

"He [Bogdan Wos, retired local worker] was my friend from school. He was a good man." 

"I was terrified when I heard about his death."

"The first thought that came to my mind was that we were finally attacked by the Russians."

Marian Praytula, Przewodow village, Poland

"Since the start of the war we keep analyzing the danger. It has quietened down recently, but here we are today."

"It's terrifying."

Ewa Byra, school headmistress

"I heard an explosion and ran out of the house to see what had happened."

"I came back home scared and then my friend said that Jozefa's husband had died. I started crying."

Renata, school janitor

The rocket of unknown origin and wild speculation landed in Przewodow 100 metres from the primary school, close to a block of apartment flats. Of the 71 pupils of the school more than half witnessed the explosion. The students remained locked in their homes following the explosion on Tuesday afternoon. Most of the villagers followed suit, the first time in memory that no one in the village arrived at the church to observe Mass. 

The following day classes at the school were cancelled. Instead a psychologist was asked to help traumatized pupils and residents. Of the two men killed who were working at a grain facility, Bogdan Wos's widow, Jozefa worked as a cleaner at the school. In her grief she was placed in the care of a medical specialist. 

The residents of he farming village of Przewodow were convinced the war in Ukraine had finally spilled across the border and they were being engulfed in the violence. And nor was it that village alone that felt of a certainty they were being drawn into the violent confrontation between Ukraine and Russia. With only 5 kilometres separating the village from the border where Russia was pounding Ukraine's vital infrastructure the villagers could be forgiven for imagining Armageddon.

 

The missile landed outside the rural village of Przewodów.   Photo: Facebook

Poland, of course as a NATO member sees Article 5 standing behind it since an attack on any member of NATO is considered an attack on the entire military group with consequences for the attacker facing 30 national militaries. In the interests of cooling down rising anger in avoidance of rash reactions, it made eminently good sense, despite Ukrainian President Zelenskyy's intimations of a deliberate Russian attack, in the greater interest of keeping the conflict confined to a country rather than risk a regional spread and a global war.

Understandably, Ukraine wants an end to its agony, and drawing in superior numbers to face off with a failing Russian advance and conclude the invasion with Moscow's ignominious forced withdrawal including the reparations that would be imposed would reflect Ukraine's first order of priorities. As the only country in the region with a full frontal attack, all others hoping to deflect one, even by a Russia that has been fairly effectively defanged.

NATO's vow to defend "every inch" of its territory, despite Warsaw's initial readiness in response to what appeared to be a direct attack challenging the military coalition, would not be put to the test this time around, however. After all, while world leaders were in conference in Bali, Moscow decided to launch an unprecedented barrage of missiles all over Ukraine, targeting its energy infrastructure; telecommunications, gas, water, plunging the country into a winter war plague.

 

Poland's NATO  partners sent messages of solidarity and the G20 was in a state of consternation as Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed them by videolink; the strike, he hammered home, represented a "true statement brought by Russia for the G20 summit"; a "terrorist state" was seated among them. But then, after all, tiny Przewodow a mere 130 kilometres from Lublin would not be the epicentre of the Third World War after all.

 

No evidence exists, Polish President Duda said a day later, of an intentional attack, as did President Biden. Mateusz Morawioecki, the Polish prime minister, said that Russia could "perfectly plan such a thing". And a former Polish general stated, "You don't start a war by blowing up a tractor". Tense calm prevailed.

Police officers work outside a grain depot where, according to the Polish government, an explosion of a Russian-made missile killed two people in Przewodow, Poland, November 16, 2022. (Michal Dyjuk/AP)

 

The Powerful Are Different From You And Me

"We recognize that the impacts of climate change at 1.5°C are much lower than at 2°C. Keeping 1.5°C within reach will require meaningful and effective actions and commitment by all countries, taking into account different approaches, through the development of clear national pathways that align long-term ambition with short- and medium-term goals, and with international cooperation and support, including finance and technology, sustainable and responsible consumption and production as critical enablers, in the context of sustainable development."

"We acknowledge that methane emissions represent a significant contribution to climate change and recognize, according to national circumstances, that its reduction can be one of the quickest, most feasible and most cost-effective ways to limit climate change and its impacts."

G20 post-summit Communique

 

"If the G20 was a dress rehearsal for COP26, then world leaders fluffed their lines."

"Their communique was weak, lacking both ambition and vision, and simply failed to meet the moment."

"Now they move on to Glasgow where there is still a chance to seize a historic opportunity, but the likes of Australia and Saudi Arabia need to be marginalized, while rich countries need to finally grasp that the key to unlock COP26 is trust. " 

Jennifer Morgan, executive director, Greenpeace International

G20 Leaders posed for a picture by the famed Trevi Fountain, Rome    Getty Images

"Private jets are a disaster for the climate."

"A single, one-hour private flight emits two tons of carbon emissions, which is a quarter of the carbon produced by the average European in a whole year."

Helena Bennett, senior policy adviser, Green Alliance

You just cannot please everyone. All the pomp and pompous displays with the glorified collective presence of the leaders of the most influential, wealthiest nations on Earth cannot dispel the impression that climate change warriors have garnered of the wanton energy wastefulness that conferences like that of the G20 and their follow-up 13-day conference in Glasgow sponsored by the UN and dubbed COP26 climate talks are in and of themselves energy wasters -- both of the fuel to convey them and of the exhaustive efforts to convince the world their decisions are meaningful.

 

"We'll cap oil and gas sector emissions today and ensure they decrease tomorrow at a pace and scale needed to reach net-zero by 2030", gushed Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of his country's energy resources, preferring to leave Canadian oil and gas abundance underground and import energy from Saudi Arabia instead. A logic that stymies the cerebral process. This is a man determined to lead the world toward salvation, offering Canada as a sacrifice to offset the growing emissions from China.

 

The COP26 host, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, addressing world leaders, urged them to put a halt to "quilting the Earth in a suffocating blanket of CO2", to "get real" about planetary responsibilities. Presumably, following his example. And they have. Private jets all around. Private aircraft are known to emit between ten and 60 times more carbon dioxide per passenger as do scheduled commercial flights and up to 140 times as much as a diesel-powered train. 

World leaders and delegates -- roughly 30,000 delegates representing 197 countries visiting Glasgow for two weeks -- are being watched environmentally and sourly accused of contributing to a "climate disaster" with their profligate use of hundreds of private jets, flying to Glasgow, along with helicopters and motorcades. Starting with the U.K. PM who will return to London via private jet, eschewing the rail system that would take 4-1/2 hours' transit, Glasgow to London.

 

President Joe Biden listens to a question during a news conference at the COP26 U.N. Climate Summit, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland. (Evan Vucci/AP)

 

An estimated 200 small executive jets are being deployed, each of which takes six hours to generate as much CO2 as the average individual will in a year. Regular passenger aircraft could have been chosen alternately, and in some instances, rail. With few exceptions every national leader is making use of private aircraft, carrying fewer passengers than commercial flights, in the process making quite the environmental impact.

Take, for example, U.S. President Joe Biden whose Air Force One and an additional four large jets accompanying him generating close to 1,000 tons of CO2 in his round-trip from America to Europe. A motorcade was the chosen mode of transit for the president to travel from Edinburgh airport to the Glasgow summit; a motorcade consisting of 22 vehicles whose function created about four tons of CO2 for the 150-km round trip. If memory serves, this is a hugely committed environment president.

The Beast, the president's armoured limousine, ekes out eight miles per gallon, emitting 4kg of CO2 each mile, whereas a hybrid family vehicle emits something like 0.12kg per mile. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen flew to Glasgow via jet. She who has a habit of "air taxis" for over half her official trips abroad; hops to Paris and London from Brussels included. 

Setting an example for the world in a global responsibility to react environmentally to reverse the horribly negative impacts of climate change, a process helped in part by human waste and negligence of nature's gift to humanity.

How're We Doing?

"Most people had assumed there would be a trade-off between health and the economy; that if you imposed restrictions to limit the virus's spread and keep deaths down, your economy would be hurt -- and the tougher the restrictions the worse for the economy."

"But not so. Countries that imposed restrictions early and severely, keeping deaths per million low, also had a low decline in GDP."

"By contrast, countries that applied restrictions haphazardly, letting deaths reach high levels while hoping to protect jobs, had among the biggest declines in GDP."

"It turns out the best economic policy was successful aggressive action to limit COVID's spread."

George Fallis, professor emeritus, economics and social science, York University, Toronto

Sweden had decided on the advice of their chief medical officer of health, not to impose  restrictions on its population, hazarding the belief that Swedes would behave sensibly, following basic guidelines of a level of social distancing and protective hygiene. Swedes for the most part, acted accordingly, and voluntarily limited activities while they went about their normal lives and trusted that their government's reliance in their population's good sense would lead to a better outcome than that of their neighbours who had gone in the opposite direction; lockdowns.

 

People walk near a trash can with a sign reading “The danger is not over — Keep your distance” in Uppsala, Sweden, in October. Photo by TT News Agency/Claudio Bresciani via Retuers files

The lack of formal restrictions in Sweden led to a large number of deaths early on, and the situation        failed to improve as time wore on. Swedish politicians were determined to forge ahead with no restrictions on trade and business; the idea was to proceed as normal; perhaps not taking into account in their deliberations that with their largest trading partners -- their neighbouring states -- closed down, the faltering economy that hit their neighbours would also impact on them. In the end, they gained nothing and lost more lives than did their neighbours.

 

High-income advanced economies with reliable health-care systems represented by 20 OECD countries came out of their ordeal with the global pandemic with mixed results. Using Canada as an example, its government faltered in initial decision-making, fluctuating between cautious instructions to its population, to eventual lockdown after downplaying the emerging seriousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. The federal government's attitude toward securing its borders was lax, it denied the usefulness of mask-wearing, instead championing testing, tracing and isolating.

 

Pedestrians in downtown Toronto during the start of the city's second lockdown in November. Photo by Cole Burston/Bloomberg files

But even these practices were poorly executed in comparison to the take-up rate of their counterpart nations in other OECD countries. One thing all countries had in common, however, despite their modern, technically advanced economies and excellent health-care systems, was unpreparedness. Along with a critical lack of PPE and other related hospital-medical equipment. This, despite more than ample warning that just such a threat as a global pandemic hovered on the near horizon. This, despite that SARS-1 had proven itself to be a deadly virus the world handled poorly, offering a lesson in the necessity of proactive preparation.

 

The first entry of the novel coronavirus took the world by surprise as it swept through the globe following its initial emergence in Wuhan, China. Which Beijing initially played down, giving inadequate and incorrect information to the WHO, delaying the declaration of a pandemic. The world looked on, fascinated and disbelieving as China then took draconian measures to cope with a dread new virus with the intention of isolating the infection and stopping its spread. Despite which COVID appeared to experience little trouble escaping the boundaries set up to contain it as it spread virulently.

 

When the winter of 2020 merged into spring, it began to appear as though much of the world had succeeded in controlling the spread of COVID, and restrictions that were imposed were relaxed while the number of cases dwindled and a sense of optimism prevailed. Until the Northern Hemisphere entered fall, then winter and the fearsome second wave of infection re-entered. Monetary stimulus, support for businesses and workers were activated by governments even as GDP shrank and the death count rose. 

Some countries had moved expeditiously and severely to limit the first wave while others struggled to contain that huge entry of infections, with mixed results. South Korea as an example experienced a mere 4.4 percent decline in GDP, with eight deaths per million population, while the U.K. took a 21.8 percent decline in GDP, and suffered 595 deaths per million. It was soon realized that those countries with the largest GDP decline experienced a larger bounceback with the mid-year decline of COVID infections.

Austria Denmark, Finland, Germany, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland experienced a smallish decline in GDP and a lower death rate per million, while Belgium, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom were hit much harder in both metrics. On the other hand other countries came off better in one metric and worse on another; France, Ireland,Netherlands, Japan, Sweden and the United States. Among these countries many committed errors in judgement, now facing a larger second wave of cases.

European countries -- in particular those that performed poorly during the first wave and lockdowns, have faced distinctly high daily death rates due to COVID-19. Severe lockdowns were re-instituted by early November and in some countries daily deaths are on the decline, while others remain struggling with ongoing high death counts. Austria, Belgium and Switzerland's death rates have been horrifically high. But it is in the United States where throughout the nine months of the coronavirus onslaught its spread was never brought under control, resulting in ongoing daily death rise surpassing levels seen in the first wave.

Those countries that realized partial successes in controlling the coronavirus are continuing to perform well at present, including South Korea, Japan, Norway, Finland and Denmark, where death rates have been kept at a relatively low rate. Australia and New Zealand are stand-outs for their success in avoiding a second wave entirely. What has been proven to be highly successful is a protocol of strict lockdowns maintained until low levels of cases are realized, then held there with tighter border controls. Testing-tracing-isolation regimes on a large scale has become a tool of necessity.