It was hot. YLE, the Finnish Broadcasting Company, notes that “July was the warmest [month] since records started” and “Joensuu Airport in Liperi had the warmest Finnish day ever with the mercury hitting 37.2 degrees on the 29th of July.” In other words, according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, “a middle-aged Finn will experience a hot summer of the kind enjoyed this year only once in his or her lifetime.”

After the winter, with a low of -27.3 °C, I enjoyed the three heat waves with temperatures above 30 °C, +34.8 °C having been the highest, a 62.1 °C difference (Kuopion sää, Savonia). As you may expect, the hot weather repeatedly turned the shallow lakes in the area into swimming pool like waters, without chlorine. In the summer, the waters, only minutes away from home, provide a refreshing opportunity to end a hot day, even late at night. The region is rich in opportunities for outdoor activities on land and water, from hiking, biking, kayaking, open fire grilling–and more exotic forms thereof–to naked swimming, with the Finnish guarantee of the unwritten rule that no one is watching.

But temperatures were not what made the summer special, at least not to me. It was light. On the longest day, in Kuopio, the sun rises at 03:03 and sets at 23:19, the length of the day being 20 hours and 16 minutes–compared to 4 hours and 45 minutes on the shortest day. At 1 am the light intensity is more or less what you expect on a cloudy afternoon in Fall. The sun completes almost a full circle every day, a natural spectacle that will amaze me next year as much as it has this year.

Like winter, the summer at latitude 62.8933 borders extremes–not so much for heat as for cold, but certainly for light. For the lack of light in winters you get fully compensated during summers; I’m not sure this holds for temperatures. Summers invite to spend time outside suggesting, thus, a balance for winters and the time spent indoors. However, no matter how I turn it, to me it is not the summer that makes this region truly unique, but the winter. It is the winter with its frost, ice, and countless crystals, envelop to each and every tiny form laying outside in the chill; it is the winter with its perfect white landscape, on deep blue skies, flooded with the glowing red light of a sunset at 2 pm; it is the winter that gives you to experience Kuopio, and natural beauty, at its truly best.

I think, one of the first predictions that had fallen upon my decision to move to Finland in 2009 were Seasonal Affective Disorder and that I’ll freeze my a$$ off. The winter has seen its last day with temperatures above freezing point late November and the first early March, though only to tease and head back to frost, with repeated lows in the range of -25 to -30 degrees Celsius. Now, however, the big melting is definitively under way. A colleague commented that it is accepted to wear long underpants, pants and possibly weatherproof pants but I must say I did just fine with my jeans. The second prediction was that I’ll need some good pair of shoes. To my surprise, the pair I had in fall was a comfortable one throughout winter. The third prediction was that I’ll be bitten by mosquitoes. I’ll tell about that one in a late summer post.

As usual, nothing beats experience. This post is an attempt to share some thoughts on the experience of winter at latitude 62.8933 and longitude 27.6793 where the shortest day counts 4 hours and 45 minutes between sunrise and sunset, the sun too shy to leave the horizon, too misplaced to send any warmth upon land 3.6686 degrees south from the Arctic Circle, above which the sun never appears on polar night and never disappears on polar day. All this might sound frightening but my experience was anything but. You must know, dealing with the low temperatures and light is a small price for the uncountable little surprises that come with such extremes. I hope this post takes away from the commonly held public believes and encourages to experience yourself.

First and foremost, the wet slightly above freezing rainy day may feel colder than a snowy frosty day. Some say it’s because of the humidity. At -25 degrees Celsius, all you need to do is to cover your extremities and walk, perhaps slightly above your average pace to keep circulation going. My guess is you won’t be cold, at least not in the first 30 minutes.

The rate of change in length of days is one of the most impressive phenomena. While the shortest day counts slightly below 5 hours between sunrise and sunset the longest counts more than 20 hours. In six months ± 15 hours. That’s almost 5 minutes each day, slightly more than half an hour every week. Spring just gained a new meaning with experiencing the breakpoint at which days north become longer than south. Though the sun draws a wider arc during summers more south, too, I can’t wait to see the almost full circle at latitude 62.8933. A sunset at 7 pm with temperatures hovering around freezing point is priceless.

A Finnish snow storm is more like the Graceful Dance of the Finest Ice Crystals, rather than a storm; 70 cm of it lay on the ground without suggesting snowapocalypse. One might think at -25 degrees Celsius it must be slippery on sidewalks; no, the danger is around freezing point, which is also when you realize that lately you have been walking on a 5-15 cm ice sheet, a marvelous, natural, perfectly walkable ground under your feet.

But there is one secret of winter at latitude 62.8933 that beats all others: trees fully covered with a 5-10 mm coat made of snowflakes. Conditions permitted, those conglomerations of frozen ice crystals actually cover almost everything, being commercial fences another curious example. Think of every leaf and tiny branch of an evergreen tree coated with crystal on crystals; then think of thicker branches coated with the flakes; then the tree bark repeating just the same along its intricate structure. Imagine yourself in a forest standing in front of such a tree with an orange-red glowing peak that reflects the last incoming rays of a sunny day. Priceless.

I’m subscribed to the Avaaz mailing list and within a few days I got at least two emails on the recent U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. I would like to discuss two statements that are part of the email I got a few hours ago. According to Avaaz,

Leaders disappointed the entire world in Copenhagen last weekend. (Emphasis added.)

Avaaz mentions the “polluting industry lobbyists,” to be the only not disappointed. I’m fairly confident, the statement is not correct. Without searching too far, personally I didn’t expect anything more so I’m not disappointed. The statement I have most difficulties with, however, is the following,

Let’s show the polluter lobby that we can’t be silenced, and show politicians that the future belongs to people, not polluters.

That the polluting industry out there wants to stick to the status quo is obvious. Provided an oil company is an example for such a polluting industry, it is rather naive to think its managers will change anything that might, in their opinion, negatively affect what the industry does: to extract, process and sell oil. This is about optimizing rational self-interest and not everything about this moral is bad. (My caveat is on rational and the, I think, necessary condition of cost internalization — which I would love to discuss and understand better.)

What troubles me most about the statement above is this dualism of polluter industry and the people, where the latter seems to be separate from the former. Now, I think, this is beyond ridiculous. Not just is life probably inherently associated with polluting habits and some scientists “estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children” [1], the quoted Avaaz statement contradicts basic economics. I’m far away from understanding the field but I believe I might get this one straight based on what I recall from my economics university classes: It’s all about supply and demand. So, what an industry does is to try to match demand with supply. There is no industry where there is no demand. Who is fueling the demand for the supply those polluting industries provide? You may guess it: We, the people.

I’m not saying, there is no room for improvement, being cost externalization probably my main concern, but suggesting that there is no link between the polluting industry and the people is, I think, nonsense.

You might, perhaps correctly, argue that I did pick a single statement and had a knee jerk reaction about it. Maybe. However, the entire email, and increasingly so the Avaaz Copenhagen mission, has this dualistic aftertaste that is, I think, disconcerting.

Hyvää Joulua.

[1] Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change. Volume 19, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 14-20.

A search for 350 on Twitter does show some activity but right now it doesn’t look like it is a trending topic. (Halloween and — ouch! — Windows 7 seem to be more trendy.) Though, this might well change over the next few hours as twitterers west of the Atlantic wake up.

I think, to me this event falls into the “make [...] history”-category of global events, e.g. Live Aid. Nice pictures, nice music, nice party, nice people, nice drinks, nice quotes but I wonder if there is anything beyond that.

Distressing, I believe, is the hope many have for global negotiations, the belief a bunch of people sitting around a table will do “the right thing.” This urge to march on the streets (or bring a 350 t-shirt up to the highest peaks) to let those “in power” know they need to take action and tell us what actions to take, troubles me, unless the purpose is to have fun. The “debate is over” but we fail to take individual action? A brief example, although simplistic; Where I currently life, I constantly have to switch off the lights in shared rooms.

I think, if we individually make independent, informed and rational decisions we will most likely head in a better direction than whatever direction is drafted by “global” negotiations. The question is, of course, how can we support independent, informed and rational individual decisions? What rational is, should not (and cannot) be decided and dictated by a few sitting at the table of global negotiations but, instead, should emerge from global knowledge. I would like my action to be rational also w.r.t people who are required to walk 20 miles a day to collect water.

According to some, Obama was apparently not specific enough, nice talk with no substance. You might argue, rightly so, the 100 heads will work on the specifics in December at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Perhaps.

I wonder, if anyone can explain me why I should believe those 100 heads will accomplish anything. I just don’t get it, likely because I’m not nearly as smart as the least smart of the 100 heads.

I believe, most of us hope and wait way too much and way too long for them to decide, to take action, to do something and tell us what to do. We spend so much time discussing with friends, lovers and families the products of those 100 heads. Whatever they come up is printed in the media, analysed and perpetuated in all world languages. We have been told that we can vote them to power and later we are continuously reminded that we can spam them with emails, phone calls, letters to let them know our opinions.

In all this, I wonder if we forget that the real power to do the right thing — whether or not you believe in climate change — lies not within those 100 heads but among us all.

Whether or not you believe in climate change or, more generally, the role humans play in environmental degradation, we probably agree, plastic is a product of technology and it is unlikely nature’s will to let turtles consume it.

It is probably reasonable to assume, the very existence of life is cause for environmental degradation and, hence, its own degradation. Are you inclined to believe, technology may boost our contribution? Perhaps. Do you think, massive-scale technological fixes may slow down or reverse degradation? Can technology heal its own wounds? The questions probably deserve a study. I hope the answers will not have to rely solely on an economic and scientific one.

According to the article,

The suite of mega-technological fixes includes everything from placing mirrors in space that reflect sunlight from the Earth, to fertilising the oceans with iron to encourage the growth of algae that can soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide. Another option is to seed clouds which bounce the sun’s rays back into space so they do not warm the Earth’s surface. (The Guardian)

I’m afraid, we might loose – if ever acquired – the healthy degree of fear, respect, awe, in front of nature’s complexity and our inability to grasp it; forget that we are not playing in our sandbox where wind and water will erase our failed engineering. Recently, hungry shrimp have shown once again how unforeseen factors may jeopardize what we believe to be solutions. Seeding the skies has been a research topic for awhile, typically for the purpose of weather control, from storms to rain. The results: inconclusive.

When our body heals a wound, it solves the problem at its root by regenerating damaged tissue. Let’s not forget, our consumption patterns are the roots of our share of environmental degradation. I’m afraid, with massive-scale technological fixes we at best put a plaster on top of the wound.