Andy Szava-Kovats 🇨🇦

Yes, Canada contributes ~1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. But climate risk is driven by cumulative global emissions, not whether any single country can “solve” it alone. If every mid-sized emitter opted out on that logic, global mitigation would be mathematically impossible.

What he’s right about is decreasing the “Green premium” (and he does acknowledges that the “premium” is already negative in many sectors, like renewable electricity production).

As you said, where I think he misses the mark, by a lot, is the risk of a false dichotomy between climate mitigation and addressing other causes of human suffering. I understand why people are wary of this framing—it has been increasingly co-opted in bad faith by fossil fuel interests.

I agree—the memo was filled with nuance and solutions discussion not captured in the news headlines. It’s easy to reduce it to “Bill Gates says climate change isn’t important after all”—he even anticipates this response and explicitly says it IS important (in bold text!)

Canadian Association of Radiologists Statement on Environmental Sustainability in Medical Imaging - Kate Hanneman, Andrew Szava-Kovats, Brent Burbridge, David Leswick, Brandon Nadeau, Omar Islam, Emil... Immediate and strategic action is needed to improve environmental sustainability and reduce the detrimental effects of climate change. Climate change is already...

Why should physicians, including radiologists, talk about climate change? ❓

💚 It affects our patients’ health. We can’t have healthy patients without a healthy planet.

🏥 Healthcare, and radiology in particular, is a significant contributor to GHGs.

📢 Our voices as physicians carry weight.

A FLO electric vehicle charging station in the foreground with a fuel tanker truck and refinery visible in the background, symbolizing the contrast between clean and fossil energy.

The future and the past in one picture. 🔌 ⚡️

@katehanneman.bsky.social @ucalgary.bsky.social @ucalgarymed.bsky.social @abhealthservices.bsky.social @utoronto.ca @imagingtoronto.bsky.social @caradiologists.bsky.social

A real privilege to welcome Dr. Kate Hanneman to the University of Calgary this week as our Visiting Professor.

Her talk on sustainability in medical imaging and planetary health was both inspiring and practical.

Excited to keep pushing these conversations forward here in Calgary!🌱 🩻 🌎

How Canada should respond to Charlie Kirk’s murder Doing better here in Canada means refusing to import the worst elements of America’s ongoing culture war into our own politics.

“How should Canada respond to Charlie Kirk's murder? Doing better here in Canada means refusing to import the worst elements of America’s ongoing culture war into our own politics.” @maxfawcett.bsky.social

Sources 🔎
[1] European Cyclists’ Federation + U.S. DOE
[2] David MacKay, Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air
[3] IEA + UITP benchmarks - assuming average occupancy of rail cars
[4] U.S. EPA - assumes single occupant
[5] U.S. DOE - assumes single occupant

🚲 𝗘-𝗯𝗶𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱.
🚙 Cars? Among the least.

E-bike: 20–30 Wh/km [1]
Walking: 50–70 Wh/km [2]
Light rail: 80–120 Wh/km [3]
EV car: 150–200 Wh/km [4]
Gas car: 600–800 Wh/km [5]

Imagine if we built our cities around the most efficient ride.

Early evidence suggests bi-parametric prostate MRI may bring:
💰 lower costs
⏱️ faster scans
⚠️ safer (no contrast)
🌱 smaller environmental footprint

Good for patients. Good for taxpayers. Good for the planet. ✅ ✅ ✅ #radsky

Environmental Sustainability in Radiology Playbook: Learn How to Make Medical Imaging Safer for the Environment - CAR - Canadian Association of Radiologists The CAR and its members have consistently made environmental sustainability a priority in radiology, through research, presentations, publications, and more. Radiology departments are high consumers o...

❓𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆?

🏥 Healthcare = 5% of global CO2 pollution.
🩻 Radiology = 1/5 of that.

(✈️ For perspective, aviation is ≈2%.)

⚡ CTs waste ~⅔ of their energy.
⚡ MRIs waste ~⅓.

Rads, techs, industry all have a role. 🤝
Healthy planet = healthier patients. 🩺🌍

Even if you wrapped the entire planet in oil and gas wells,
they’d still end up as stranded assets as the world moves on to cleaner (and cheaper) energy.

One of the biggest mistakes fossil fuel execs can make is
equating SHORT-TERM PROFITS with LONG-TERM REALITY!

It’s true we can’t solve climate change without big emitters like China taking action.

But it’s equally true we can’t solve it without smaller emitters—especially wealthy ones like Canada—doing their part.

We’re not “too small to matter.” If everyone thought that way, we’d never get anywhere.

4️⃣ 𝗔𝗻𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆—𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲—𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲.

This isn’t just feel-good symbolism. It pressures other to follow.

🇳🇴 Take Norway: 0.1% of global emissions. But >80% of new cars EVs sends a powerful message: If a northern petrostate can, hard for other nations to argue its “not feasible”.

3️⃣ 𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.

CO₂ lingers for decades, continuing to warm the planet. Many wealthy “<2%” nations have a higher share of 𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 emissions.

Wealthy nations built their wealth by burning fossil fuels—now they have a responsibility to invest in clean energy.

☀️ Solar cost has dropped 99.8% since the 1970s—90% in the last decade alone.

The driving force behind this? Increased deployment and economies of scale.

So Canada’s solar does more than reduce domestic emissions—it send a signal to global markets, encouraging investment in solar elsewhere.

2️⃣ 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱.

The “we’re negligible” argument assumes only domestic emissions count, which isn’t the case. Global markets and politics are connected.

When countries adopt clean tech, costs go down worldwide, shaping 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦’𝘴 emissions.

If every <2% emitter country—particularly wealthy ones—shrugged and said “we’re too small to make a difference,” the biggest share of emissions would remain unaddressed.

🗳️ It’s like voting: one ballot rarely decides an election. But if everyone thinks “my vote doesn’t matter,” democracy collapses.

1️⃣ 𝗜𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 “𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲” 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

Only 6 countries on Earth have a >2% share of emissions.

𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 emits <2% and might consider themselves to be “negligible”. But together, these “small” emitters make up 36% of global CO₂—more than China.

If Canada’s CO₂ emissions fell to zero, the climate would barely notice—we emit <2% of global total.

Its a familiar argument:
“𝙊𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮’𝙨 𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚. 𝙄𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙤.”

And I get it—graphs like this 𝘤𝘢𝘯 make us feel powerless.

But here’s why our actions 𝘥𝘰 matter: 🧵

Lol it is and it seemed so counterintuitive I just did a second look and realized I misread the graph axes 🤦‍♂️

♻️ People 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 the benefits of recycling & efficient appliances. ✈️ They 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 the massive impact of skipping long flights & eating less red meat. This mismatch means effort often goes to low-impact actions while high-impact ones are overlooked.

Is your Tesla a climate conspiracist? Climate researcher Ken Caldeira discovered that his Tesla will enthusiastically spew pure, fact-check-free climate conspiracies on demand.

Some context: www.nationalobserver.com/2025/08/25/n...

It seems the “conspiracy theorist” is one of the Grok “personalities” you can select, which likely led to the response featured in the video. Still quite alarming nonetheless

Exxon in 1977 (quietly): CO₂ from fossil fuels, per our own scientists, will warm the planet. 🤐

Exxon in 2000: Who can really say if fossil fuels are warming the planet, the science is just too complicated to know. 🤷‍♂️

Exxon now: Okay you were right. But we are totally going to techno-fix it now! 😇

“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙖!”

Cool — so I guess you also don’t care about Leo’s yacht or Taylor’s private jet either, since those are a drop in the bucket too.

What’s that? It’s unfair for 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 to have such high emissions?
Funny how per-capita suddenly matters now.

Canada and the U.S. blaming climate change on “China and India” is like a mansion cranking the AC to 18 °C all summer, then blaming the apartment complex down the street — which doesn’t even have AC — because their total power bill is bigger.
(Never mind the fact that 400 people live there.)

🌍 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨:

🇮🇳 India hit its clean energy target 5 years early
🇪🇺 EU cut emissions 8% last year
🇨🇳 China is electrifying everything

Meanwhile, the U.S. under Trump is still raging about induction stoves and claiming off shore wind causes whale cancer.

This is true. Our healthcare isn’t the flex we think it is.