The study, called “Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast.” was done by Cambridge, MA based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 50 scientists and economists and was peer-reviewed. It’s the most in-depth report produced to date and took two years to produce.
Listen, we have a very limited period of time, ten years or less, in which we can have an impact on the liklihood of a very grim future here in the Northeast (if that’s the center of your universe), and elsewhere (where I know your heart is capable of going). If we continue to sit on our policy thumbs instead of quickly reducing our carbon emissions, the report authors predict that by the end of this century:
- Summers in New England will resemble those of present-day Georgia.
As many as 20 days over 100 degrees each summer.
Sea level rise over a foot, endangering our beaches and waterfront cities.
100 year floods in Boston every two to three years will put landmarks like Faneuil Hall and the Boston Garden, as well as much of the downtown subway system, under water.
A quadrupling of “bad air days” due to extreme heat making it dangerous to work or play outside
The near disappearance of winter and the multi-billion dollar recreation and tourism economy in much of New England
Minor, I suppose, compared to what the Bangladeshis will know. With so little time to have an impact on our changing climate, I’m trying very hard to figure out why so many of our politicians in BOTH parties think that building coal refineries (coal gasification, IGCC, or whatever Orwellian term you’d like to use) and Hydrogen (made from coal) as a fuel are good ideas. I read reports like this I wonder why those billions aren’t instead flowing towards wind, solar, and tidal projects instead of subsidizing our stupidity.
ugh. It’s all been said.
“Why didn’t you do something about this?” If they do, I’ll send them here.
As much as possible, as fast as possible
You’re right. Nuclear power plants emit water vapor. The catch is beefing up security for the waste and devising new ways to contain and dispose of that waste.
<
p>
Nuclear power can also serve as an intermediate step as solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power generation become more efficient.
We don’t need your dangerous and invasive nuclear power. Don’t you know that nuclear fallout hurts women and children disproportinately? bigot.
<
p>
I have an idea for energy alternative power. Static electricity. Don’t you hate it when you walk around in your fluffy slippers and then touch a metal radiator. ZAAAAPPPP. It hurts like hell. But, it might just save our world. If we can harness the static electricity in our slippers then we can fuel a promising future for both our children and our kids. If we just use our brains, our minds and our heads we can build a future with less dependence on oil from the nations that support and encourage freedom fighters like Osama Bin Laden.
<
p>
I once worked for a footwear company so I know a lot about building shoes. With a small bit of wire and a twenty pound battery we can create a pair of slippers that will save the world. We should call it freedom footwear.
<
p>
Unfortunately, Bush will ruin everything so my dream of a better tomorrow will be ruined by that pig. Hey Deval, you read the posts on this BMG site – give me a call and let’s discuss freedom footwear. Together we can slip into a greener future. Let’s reach for that – after your done allocating money for sexual health initiatives, that is.
Got anything of worth to post?
Nuclear power plants emit water vapor.
<
p>
…the catch is that, although water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is not generated using previously sequestered water, unlike carbon in fossil fuels. And the water vapor does a good job of returning to the surface–a phenomenon known as rain.
<
p>
My own preference would be photovoltaics, but there is an environmental degradation from their manufacture. In the meantime, as far as I’m concerned, nuclear is the way to go. According to an IEEE Spectrum issue a few years ago, there have been developed several designs for nuclear power plants that are almost fail-safe.
I didn’t mention water vapor as a bad thing, but that it’s the only emission (save a meltdown). As you rightly pointed out, it comes back to us as rain.
<
p>
I share your concerns about photovoltaic manufacturing. The other problem is that they’re highly inefficient (20% efficient at best?) and not ideal for use in large-scale power plants. Their best use right now is to supplement power generation for homes and office buildings.
<
p>
Stirling engines provide an interesting alternative to photovoltaics for use in larger-scale power plants. They’re more efficient than photovoltaics, and (I believe) without the nasty manufacturing byproducts. Stirlings are already being utilized by SoCal Edison for a power plant.
I tend to believe that the efficiency of photovoltaics, after they have been manufactured (there’s an inefficiency) is a bit higher, but I won’t quibble. They aren’t useful for long term energy supply, but, mounted on a house rooftop, may be able to supply some power to the grid, as well as to the house. What the payoff is, I don’t know.
<
p>
It’s been a long time since I took thermo, but the Stirling engine issue may be interesting. Stirling engines need to be powered by something. Is SoCal Edison they using geothermal?
but let’s get to the point where we’ve done all reasonable and safe things prior to nuclear and the problem still isn’t solved.
<
p>
* Lets roll out far more wind, small hydro, and solar hot water heating
* Lets crank up the efficiency of our autos, and expand our mass transit for local, commuting, and city-to-city options
* Lets increase our standards on efficiency for appliances and other users of electricity, natural gas, heating oil, etc
* Lets increase our building standards so that new buildings are more efficient
* Lets change our zoning standards to encourage smart growth instead of sprawl
* Lets stop subsidizing coal, natural gas, and petroleum exploration, transportation, and excavation
<
p>
When we’ve done all of those things to the best of our ability, and we still are releasing too much carbon, then lets replace the last of our coal/nat’l gas/oil burning power plants with nuclear, and replace our 45 mpg+ hybrids with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles running on nuclear power-produced hydrogen.
<
p>
But, until then, lets avoid nuclear and put our efforts in solutions that don’t have the elephant-in-the-room storage problems that nuclear has, not to mention the ratcheting up of foreign policy nuclear talk that goes hand in hand with more power plants.
and my findings are disturbing. I predict in less than four months the entire progressive northeast will be submerged in water due to global warming. Our children’s flesh will burn off right before our eyes. Our dogs will cook like a hamgurger on a hotplate. The cities will be engulfed in flames up until the flood waters put out the fires. Icebergs will be floating across the Charles River and the Red Sox will go into a tailspin with eight weeks left in the season. My God, it will be horrible.
<
p>
But hey, at least Governor Deval Patrick got funding for sexual health education. We can all burn in a firey furnace with the peace of mind that our children know all about condoms and blow jobs. Thanks Deval.
One, if climate in Massachusetts comes to resemble that of present-day Georgia, it is likely that Georgia will develop into a desert. Desertification is a prediction of climate change.
<
p>
Two, if there is a “hundred year flood” in Boston, there needs to be something to flood. The Charles River has far too little flow to do much of a flood.
<
p>
Three, the problem that the Bangladeshis have is that the Chinese have pretty much deforested the area around the Yangtze river basin, and, as a result, the flows have not been contained.
Tidal projects profoundly change the ecosystems into which they are built. They devastate indigenous species. Unlike global temperature, the tides have remained constant for millions and millions of years, cycling twice a day. You propound a theory that global warming will be devastating but ignore the fact that your tidal project will immediately and profoundly alter the environment you seem so intent on protecting.
<
p>
Bird lovers (even Oriole lovers) are not fond of wind farms. Seems like when feathers meet steel the steel always wins.
<
p>
If you really want to decrease our greenhouse emissions you need to get real. Wind, tidal and solar? Things will get pretty dim around here if that is the case. If you really believe that a catastrophe is around the corner you have to change your tune. “Go nukes” should be your mantra because the only way to produce the amount of energy America needs and not warm the climate is to embrace a huge national nuclear power plant program. Ah, the dilemma you face.
<
p>
That’s just plain FUD. The fact is that while birdkill is an issue to consider with each wind farm, orders of magnitudes more birds are killed in tUSA each year by (a) windows on buildings, (b) automobiles, and (c) house cats each year than wind turbines.
<
p>
Now, not all birds are created equal — a single bald eagle is far more important than a single pigeon. That said, bird [and bat] kills simply aren’t happening in large numbers around wind turbines relative to their local populations. Care must be taken to ensure that this trend of low kills is maintained in the future*, but there’s no reason to think that bird kill will suddenly shoot up… the Audubon societies will keep their eyes on the ball.
* Early turbines were built with criss-crossing pole structures, which were inviting places for birds to sit. Now, they’re built with monopoles, and birds don’t rest near the blades. One early wind farm in CA was built in a migratory path. That mistake won’t happen again, and that farm has been decommissioned. Finally, earlier turbines used small blades that spun quickly; new systems use large blades which spin more slowly [even along the outer edge], making it far easier for the bird to avoid the whirring blade, all the while generating the same amount of power due to conservation of momentum.
(birds killed by)…windows on buildings…
<
p>
Our house in a suburb of Cincinnati, built in the late 1950s, had huge picture windows in the living room. Every couple of days, I had to clean up the birdkill from birds who were trying to fly through the windows.
but just check out the anti wind farm sites. It is curtains for the flocks of the world, curtains, I tell ya!!