So there’s this minor issue of local interest that perhaps should play a role in our Senate race this year:
As temperatures are projected to climb, polar ice to melt, and oceans to swell over the coming decades, Boston is likely to bear a disproportionate impact of rising sea levels, government scientists report in a new study.
The seas along the East Coast from North Carolina to New England are rising three to four times faster than the global average, and coastal cities, utilities, beaches, and wetlands are increasingly vulnerable to flooding, especially from storm surges, according to the US Geological Survey study published Sunday.
It is fine and well to do one’s one part to halt climate change: Drive less, conserve home energy, eat less meat, and so forth. But climate change calls for strong action in our self-defense: If a foreign power or terrorist group could credibly threaten to inundate a good chunk of the East Coast, how seriously would we take that threat?
And many of the actions that need to be taken, like revamping our extremely wasteful energy grid, our completely beyond an individual’s power. We need billions, yes bilions, in investment to make that happen.
And we need a price on carbon, so that the real cost of climate change is priced into the fuels; and so that the renewables market flourishes. Congress can do that. One bike-riding vegetarian can’t.
Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren should both be absolutely hounded on this issue, every day between now and November.
Brown in particular could put himself in a unique position as a climate-hawk Republican, while covering his left flank and becoming truly cross-partisan. If it were a real commitment on his part, it could be huge. Somehow I doubt he’ll do it, but I’d welcome that evolution.
Discuss
39 Comments . Leave a comment below.To be genuinely depressed on this gloomy New England day, read the comments on line to the Boston Globe’s sobering story.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/25/sea_level_rising_3_4_times_faster_along_east_coast_than_globally_government_report_finds/?comments=all#readerComm
From the Globe article:
Wow. That’s a lot of water. But that’s not what the USGS study says. They did state rates and ranges, and it’s a few millimeters annually, some of which is attributable to subsidence. The Baltimore Sun has superior reporting here.
While the hyperbolic opinion of 2-to-6 feet by 2100 is in the 4th, and not stated, as far as I can tell, in the USGS report. Plus no mention of subsidence.
Compare and contrast to the Baltimore Sun piece. This is why the Globe market value has plummeted from $1 billion to $40 million…readers don’t want the “reporter’s” opinion, they want the news.
Note that the level rise accelerates greatly after 1970. It’s about 6 mm/yr over the past 40 years in a lot of local waters, which means 2 feet by the end of the century. If it accelerates from there, then it’s more.
if the US reduced it’s pollutants to zero, how would that effect this rise in sea water? I assume there are many other countries which are polluting far more than we are and the polar ice is melting from everyone’s pollution, especially China and other developing countries wanting cars, heat, electricity… SO… we shut down all the coal plants and exactly what does this do to our ocean levels? My guess (for what it’s worth)… NO significant change!
No, there’s one, which is polluting a little more than we are:
China also has a much more aggressive program to develop renewable energy.
But I still haven’t heard anyone answer the question, what would be the result of the US spending hundreds of billions of dollars to reduce our CO2 emissions? Would the polar ice cap melt slower or reverse? Would ocean temps start to drop? Would the rate of warming slow down? I might support some of these efforts to slow down our emissions if I knew what the effect would be.
It makes them feel OH SO GOOOOOOD to spend trillions and have nothing to show for it, except a lower standard of living.
I said a month ago that we all are in favor of low energy prices, and man, did the knives come out at me.
first accept the idea that man-made global warming is scientific fact
And how much is natural, like an active sun, etc.
I encourage you to read the IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. In “Figure SPM.3.”, it suggests that fossil fuel use accounted for 56.6% of the total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004, in terms of CO2-equivalents.
From page 5:
56% due to humans burning fossil fuels?
Humans burning fossil fuels comprised 56% of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. That’s not the same as 56% of global warming, because the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are not linear — there are indications that the warming produced by each unit of GHG emission increases with emissions.
Meanwhile, the last paragraph of the quote is perhaps the most direct answer to the earlier question you asked. In the absence of anthropogenic effects, we would have been in a cooling phase (less active sun, more volcanic effects).
but one cannot, scientifically, assert the recent trend will continue linearly through 2100. Maybe oceans will recede.
When your attempt to discredit both the source just challenge the content. How do you know? Are you a scientist or is this just a WAG?
When your attempt to discredit the source fails, just challenge the content. How do you know? Are you a scientist or is this just a WAG?
“Though global sea level has been projected to rise roughly two-to-three feet or more by the end of the 21st century, it will not climb at the same rate at every location. Differences in land movements, strength of ocean currents, water temperatures, and salinity can cause regional and local highs and lows in sea level.”
The Globe cite is accurate
that’s your excuse for everything; if others are doing it then why shouldn’t I? Its a stupid attitude.
I know you think I’m stupid but I like to be pragmatic, at least in my life, when I can. My point was, before we spend trillions, put a huge finical burden on society, make immense changes to our infrastructure… wouldn’t it be wise to know what kind of impact all this multi-decade projects would have? A lot of people want to change the windows in their house to save energy but most experts will tell you the savings from new windows is tiny but the cost is huge. I’m not saying don’t change the windows but I am saying if you’re complaining that your “roofless” house is cold then don’t spend tens of thousands on new windows and expect that to warm the house. This is a “reality” based forum correct. That’s all, sorry you think it’s “stupid”.
That is the name you are tagged with simply by pointing out the serial hypocrisy of a few. Watch out!
= stupidity
Beat it troll, and take Kalamazoo Dan and all his brilliance with you.
Can you imagine the animus here if Romney wins. Try not to spoil the narrative otherwise they attack.
You won’t believe why I got that name, along with Trump from Waltham as well.
I was having a discussion about govt waste and inefficiencies and the nefarious relationship between public unions and Democratic politicians. So I pointed out the fact that in Kalamazoo MI, they merged their police and fire personal into one unit back in the 80′s, and they’re called public safety officers. Not so shocking, they save millions a year and have better response times than cities and towns who keep them separate, as we do here in MA. So, I had the nerve to ask why we dont implement the best practices of other states?
Well, they unleashed holy hell on me, not even a one of them said it should be explored. Kalamazoo is the same size as Waltham, but more diversified and lower avg. household income. It ain’t some hick town with lots of farmland, if u know what I mean.
Recently, the city of Scottsdale, AZ began merging their PD and FD and they have 250k people. But for some reason, we are stuck in the 18th century model, along with public pensions and h/c retiree benefits.
they wore mullets too.
They are not going back, in fact other cities and towns are going the way of Kalamazoo.
Medication time now, Demintfan….nite, nite
what you are talking about
Cost Cutting in Michigan
Reality based.
To spoil the narrative. And heaven forbid that anyone actually attack your efforts to spoil the narrative.
So since you admit you are here not for honest debate, or a shared set if ideas for discussion, but to spoil the narrative you can expect plenty more attacks.
To be fair, Elizabeth Warren’s site says only a little about global warming, but Brown and his staff have repeatedly avoided saying anything since his election. That’s the serious flip side of his secret meeting with kings and queens–repeatedly blowing off anyone who asks a question he does not like.
@ Boston Shepard–why is it ethical or responsible for Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians to continue to reject the scientific evidence that shows that global warming is a real and present danger?
Thanks for posting this. And especially for the business about hounding the candidates. As I was suggesting during the ongoing debates in re the DeFranco campaign, most of which I found waay too personal on both sides, one of my key reasons for supporting Bob Massie initially and, later, Marisa DeFranco were that both talked about climate change. Massie, especially, was–actually remains–very good on the subject. My fear was that since I haven’t seen either Ms. Warren or Sen. Brown talk at length on the subject or devote any serious time on their web sites to the issue, it won’t be one. I’ve been told that this is because Ms. Waren is staying “on message,” but I’m not satisfied.
I spend FAR too much time arguing with friends in Occupy and 350 and transition-towns movements–folks uttery cynical about the ability of mainstream poliicians to even attempt anything remotely substantial in this area (Rio, of course, simply confirmed their suspicions–once again)–in attempt to enforce the same points you’ve made here. We absolutely need climate-change tribunes in Congress, and we need some who take the matter with sufficient seriousness, AND who can explain that conservation and green energy investments and regulations can actually be win-win situations, on the stump.
I don’t see Scott Brown taking up the cause, though. Don’t see David Koch paying for any of that nonsense. And his votes to date aren’t encouraging.
So: how do you suggest we hound? I always like using an alternative candidates as stalking horses on key issues; how, now, do we exert the needed pressure?
They took a quick poll of the call participants, asking for votes on the most important issues in the race. Energy and environment came in 4th, behind jobs and economy, health care, Wall Street accountability and national security (not sure on that last one). So, how do we exert pressure? Perhaps more of us environmental types need to get involved and get on calls like the one I was on last night.
Don’t go supporting stalking horse or alternative candidates, however. This race is close enough as it is without the risk of a spoiler.
Yes, Dan we DO feel good about being good stewards of the planet and its atmosphere. WE have the capacity to be a leader even if others weren’t doing likewise. Who cares? Doing the right thing should not require looking over our shoulder to see if others are doing likewise. As for global warming, of course there is plenty of evidence, but even leaving that aside some of us appreciate being able to breathe.
To have such little concerns or worries in life, that one is preoccupied with what the earths temperature may be in 100′ years. Nice to be you.
It must be nice to have so few concerns or worries that you can spend every waking minute taunting people on BMG! Go try your shtick at DailyKos, see how long you’d last there…
The same people that are chiding us for being concerned about the earth being inhabitable for our grandchildren are the same people who complain about the national deficit being a burden on our grandchildren.
I’m not a scientist, but I get the distinct impression we can’t afford to wait on this one. Plus there are concerns that are manifesting themselves pretty much now. Yes, longterm planning generally is more responsible than short-term convenience.
…I have plenty of short term needs and concerns in my life right now, thank you very much, but they need not and should not be mutually exclusive.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sun 19 May 7:31 PM