There’s been a rather startling juxtaposition of climate change stories in the news in recent days.
USA Today wrote about a new scientific report on the long-term consequences of continuing to consume all of the fossil fuels available to us (“Study: Fossil fuel burn-off will submerge U.S. cities”).
Over the next 100 years, the authors predict something over one inch of sea level rise per year.
For those of us living on islands, this isn’t a comfortable prospect. In the lifespan of a standard 30-year mortgage, that could mean that many oceanfront properties could become uninhabitable.
Despite that unpleasant prospect, one of the authors, Ken Caldeira, thinks we can deal with those relatively near term impacts. It’s the longer term that he looks at, the next thousand years.
“Most projections this century are two to three feet of sea level rise, which we can deal with,” Caldeira said. “But 100 feet basically means abandoning London, Rome, Paris, Tokyo and New York.”
And, of course, we seem to be feeling some of the impacts of climate change already, with fewer days of tradewinds over the course of the year, more hot, muggy weather, and more frequent threats from tropical storms. Sea level rise is still to come.
So that’s the view from one side.
On the other side have been several news stories detailing the Republicans’ political agenda, which has reportedly moved from opposing measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to active attempts to subvert any international climate change agreements.
An article by Joe Romm was cross-posted on several sites in the past few days (“In Radical Shift, GOP Leaders Actively Embrace Catastrophic Climate Change“).
…for most of the past quarter-century, most of the GOP leadership has at least given lip service to the idea that global warming is a global problem that needs a global solution. Not only have they abandoned that public position, but they now apparently believe the role of the “exceptional” and “indispensable” nation is to actively work to undermine the world’s best chance to save billions of people — including generations of Americans — from needless misery.
See also, Jonathan Chait, writing in New York Magazine, “The Republican Plot to Destroy an International Climate Agreement,” which covers much of the same ground.
Chait writes:
Why would Republicans try to persuade the rest of the world to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? One reason is that, while other countries transitioning to low-emission fuels may not cost American consumers anything, it definitely costs American fossil-fuel companies. People who own large deposits of coal and oil want to sell it abroad. The Republican climate-change strategy has been hatched by a group of Republican politicians and fossil-fuel lobbyists so tightly intermingled there seems to be no distinction between the interests of the two. (“In the early months of 2014, a group of about 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists began meeting regularly in the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, often, according to some of the participants, in a conference room overlooking the White House. Their task was to start devising a legal strategy for dismantling the climate change regulations they feared were coming from President Obama.”) Beyond the straightforward self-interest of coal and oil companies, there is the ancient right-wing distrust of international agreements in general. Plus, of course, Republicans continue to follow a policy of across-the-board opposition to the whole Obama administration agenda. Destroying an international climate agreement means denying an Obama legacy; what more do they want?
And focus on the GOP agenda isn’t new.
For example, Lisa Friedman, writing at www.eenews.net in early July, GOP senators vow to block U.S. from complying with global climate deal.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), speaking after a hearing in which he and other GOP lawmakers questioned Obama’s authority to enter into even a voluntary U.N. climate deal, said he expects to follow up with legislation. But, he acknowledged, there is probably not much congressional opponents of reducing carbon emissions can do to stop the Obama administration from signing onto the agreement expected in Paris this December.
“They’re going to tell [the international community] that they don’t need to have ratification. I can’t stop him from doing that. But we can stop us from living with an agreement that we’re not a part of,” Inhofe said.
His solution to meeting the U.S. pledge? “Just don’t do it.”
This is apparently the message being conveyed to leaders of other countries. If the Republicans win the White House, they’ll make sure that the U.S. abrogates whatever agreements are entered into by the Obama administration.
It’s akin to the letter sent by a group of members of Congress to Iranian leaders vowing to scuttle the nuclear deal if they are given a chance.
Pretty spooky stuff, in my view.
Especially after our recent taste of what a warmer ocean means for us in the years ahead.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Oh, for those halcyon days of yore when politics ended at the ocean’s shore.”
Sounds like the oil, coal and gas industries are borrowing a leaf from yesterday’s tobacco outfits: trying to lower their profiles at home by exporting abroad.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has issued an Engineering Regulation that requires all Oahu projects funded through Corps, like the Ala Wai Canal Flood Control Project, to evaluate the impacts on project design and operations of a potential 4.5 foot sea level rise by 2100
For more details, see http://www.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsArchive/StoryArticleView/tabid/232/Article/610884/usace-releases-a-report-on-screening-level-assessment-of-projects-with-respect.aspx
Anything greater than three feet is bad news for Waikiki and Kakaako
You say sea level rise is still to come after seeing first hand the beach erosion occurring along Kaaawa beaches?
Was going to post this link with the previous Hee piece, but it didn’t seem to fit.
Not sure it really fits here either, except for the weak relationship to the reporting of issues that remain controversial among “experts.”
Am hoping many eyeballs get to the very last para, which contain the longer construct of these select words:
“That’s why it’s so important to have… journalists—who are dedicated to following the evidence rather than advancing any political cause… They can help pick apart the social construction…and thwart attempts to muddy the waters.”
http://grist.org/food/are-scientists-who-collaborate-with-industry-tainted/
dude 1: “i’ll believe it when i see it.”
dude 2: “your house is underwater now.”
dude 1: “i’m suing.”
dude 3: “i’m suing Malibu moms for convincing me flu vaccines will turn my son into a raccoon.”
In the headline, you could replace “Republicans” with any of the following; HECO, NextEra, or Mina Morita.
http://www.ilind.net/2015/08/26/former-puc-chair-blasts-governors-no-lng-stance/
Star-Advertiser, Sept. 15
By Kathryn Mykleseth
U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz said he wants the state Public Utilities Commission to focus on NextEra Energy Inc.’s renewable energy and cost-cutting capabilities when deciding whether the Florida-company is fit to purchase Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc.
Schatz, in an interview with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser on Monday, said the PUC commissioners should not get distracted by other issues.
“I really think the PUC has to be laser-focused on reducing costs and increasing the penetration of renewable energy,” Schatz said. “Everything else is a distraction, and that is how the PUC ought to evaluate this.”
NextEra said in December it wants to buy HEI for $4.3 billion. Last month NextEra added more than 50 new commitments to its original proposal, including supporting the state’s goal to reach 100 percent electrical generation coming from renewables by 2045, committing to more than $465 million in customer savings and $500 million in economic benefits for the state over a five-year period, and accelerating the development of smart grids throughout the isles. The savings for residential users is estimated to be $372 per Oahu customer over five years. The sale must be approved by the PUC, which has said it will make a decision by June 2016…………………………..
You’ll have to forgive me, but when I hear Sen. Schatz talk about global warming I see some TV evangelist trying to sell me salvation.
dogmatic fear mongering hyper partisan hyperbole aside, Chait will be happy to know that there has been a 40 year ban on crude oil exports out of our country, but even that doesn’t matter bc global oil demand is independent of our export policies. Take a deep breath….
And then start to contemplate how ridiculous a 1000 year prediction of anything is…. Now Exhale
evangelism in America?????
get outta here.
😛
The projections by the US Army Corps of Engineers are not 1000 year predictions. They go to 2100 and provide science based projections of what will happen during that 85 year time period. They have the same reality as science based projections of the likelihood of the “100-year” flood or tsunami. You can ignore them or dismiss them, but if you decide to build in the shoreline area, you would be a fool to disregard the possibility that you will find yourself in deep water at some point in the future.