It’s Friday, February 9, and it’s 14 degrees Celsius. People are smiling and saying hello to one another, jubilant that winter is over. Indeed it nearly never existed at all. I see flip-flops and my heart sinks. Flip-flops in Toronto should be three months away.

It’s as though the last 25 years of climate science is lost on people. It was April 1, 1997 when I first started working with a team who believed that humanity’s own activities were slowly changing the climate patterns of the globe. That was at the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives - ICLEI - a membership organization of municipalities around the world banding together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adopt sustainable development practices that came out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. My eyes were opened to the fact the science was already clear - the way we were conducting ourselves was incrementally affecting the temperature of the globe. In the 90s, though, it seemed like experts were confident that with the right public policy measures to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, changed commercial and industrial practices, and a tweak to citizens’ habits, we could divert the trajectory that had been predicted.

I’m not a scientist but the explanations made sense to me. And still do. You can’t keep milking a planet for everything it’s got and not see some kind of impact. You don’t get something for nothing. The 2004 film, The Day After Tomorrow, seemed an over-the-top example of what might happen, but those of us in the enviro-world hoped it would jolt the public consciousness. Two years later, the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, chronicled Al Gore’s efforts to educate the world about global warming, as we called it then. With these films making the rounds, it looked like the message was getting through - we really had to make some significant shifts or the planet was doomed. The models all showed it was decades down the road though. Someone else’s problem. And that, of course, was the problem.

Twenty years later, we know the models were too optimistic given the limited extent to which people and policy makers were prepared to change. Friday seemed an aberration but it won’t be. Toronto is expected to experience higher temperatures and more heat events and by 2040-2050, the City can expect to have approximately 66 days each year with above 30°C. The average since 1999 has been 21 days/year. Extreme weather occurs regularly and with little warning but I don’t see a lot of evidence of us changing. Worse, I don’t see a lot of people worried about it. I had my annual round of being stunned in late December by the mounds of detritus spilling out of the recycling bins in Weston, evidence of the holiday consumerism that continues despite the need to reduce consumption and rumours that people are currently experiencing tough times. Then in early January, Facebook Marketplace was flooded with still-in-the-box items being sold off cheap. To a scrooge like me, it seems very apparent everyone buys each other a bunch of junk recipients don’t need or even want. 

Friday’s seemingly universal cheerfulness was another example of the blasé attitude we have about the too-warm temperatures. With very few exceptions, people beamed as broadly as the sun itself as they freed themselves from the traditional constraints of a Toronto winter. Cars roared around the neighbourhood, music blaring, to the delight of the drivers. Oh, don’t get me wrong - I would love a cruise with the windows down on a nice day, too but surely those days are an anachronism now. 

It’s time to consider living a smaller life, one that is more mindful of the impacts of the destruction that comes from large-living. 

“What can I do," people moan. Or “it’s too late, why bother?” 

To that I say: “Do something, anything. Just don’t do nothing.” 

I’m not pretending to be the poster child for environmentalism here. I know many who are taking much bigger stands -  refusing to fly; giving up their cars; powering with solar; going vegan; or all of the above. I aspire to have their resolve and I’m chipping away at some of my most damaging habits, especially eating meat.**. But I did take a step to reduce my personal footprint. While my property now leaves a bigger outline in the environmental sand, instead of just one toe print - me - I currently have the full complement of five toes: four guests in my old house and me here in Chandlerville.

I gave some thought to reducing consumption in my new house too - a tankless water heater, a ductless dryer, an induction stove-top. I had some disappointments especially when I had to have a gas furnace.*

“If you were a real environmentalist, you’d have made a bigger effort to get a heat pump,” people have said, some judging, others mocking.  But at least I’ve done something.

As I watched Friday’s flip-floppers happily skip around the neighbourhood, I couldn’t help but think of another movie from a couple of decades ago. Seems like everyone’s forgotten to look for the brake and are holding hands like Thelma and Louise driving straight for the cliff.  Wheeeeee! 

* They calculated the electrical load between the two houses as requiring 400 amp service if I’d put in a heat pump, not easily achievable. As it was, I increased it to 200 amp. One day, as the efficiency improves, I’ll replace my already out-dated gas furnace. Until then, I’m keeping the temp lower, wearing a sweater, and using ceiling fans to prevent the heat from hanging around at the ceiling.

** Have a watch of Netflix’s series called You Are What you Eat: A Twin Experiment for an entertaining yet powerful look at the impact of meat-eating on the planet.

If you like what you’re reading, there is no greater compliment than to become a subscriber. Sign up with your email address to receive news and updates. Usually one each week - I promise I won’t spam you every day! (I wish I were that productive!)