November 1st, 2012 · Comments Off on ECO New York, ECO New Jersey, ECO East Coast
In 2005, just a week after Katrina hit New Orleans, blogger Meteor Blades outlined a plan for rebuilding New Orleans in a smart, sensible, leading-edge way: Eco New Orleans: ‘A Shining Example for the Whole World’. Meteor Blades began this must read (especially now, again) discussion:
The tragedy wrought by Katrina provides a chance to do what Mayor Ray Nagin said George Bush told him … : New Orleans can be remade into “a shining example for the whole world.”
Even as we are just in the opening days of recovering from Frankenstorm Sandy, with fellow Americans killed by this climate change-influenced severe weather event and millions of fellow Americans without power, we should look not to “rebuild” (as we have already heard from multiple politicians) what was (damaged or destroyed by Sandy) but to recreate a built infrastructure more resilient to mounting climate chaos and a built infrastructure that lessens humanity’s stress on the planetary climate system to reduce the likelihood and extent of future impacts.
Meteor Blades merits credit for the seriousness and quality of his : Eco New Orleans post, as it provided a very serious outline of measures to take with explicit examples of benefits to derive from them. In this post, I will not even hint at targeting the same level of detail but, instead, will simply put down some markers for consideration while opening the door for continued discussion (whether in comments or otherwise).
Basic principles that should guide reconstruction efforts and resources
Resources should not go to rebuilding with duplication of same vulnerabilities. Sadly, too many of our (limited) resources post disaster situations have gone to ‘rebuild’ to then find the same disaster occurring over again. For example, houses in flood plains that have, in essence, been flooded out multiple times. Sandy was an extreme, “unprecedented” event — however, climate change is making such events more likely and potentially more severe. Does it make sense to rebuild homes, essentially, at sea level or should such buildings be ‘recreated’ with lower vulnerability to rising seas and storm surges?
Rebuild “green”, with better public transit access, more energy efficient buildings, onsite clean energy generation (combined heat power, solar, wind, geothermal, etc …)
Target 100% low-carbon electrical system. This should include a major commitment to the offshore wind system but shouldn’t stop there as there should be a significant portion as distributed power. This can range from existing options (such as rooftop solar and small scale wind) to emergent systems (such as enhanced geothermal and small modular reactors). As part of this, the building code should shift (immediately) to requiring rebuilt structures to generate 20 percent of power onsite (with clean energy systems) and have that figure, for new buildings, go up 2.5 percent per year. (E.g, after four years, 30 percent onsite power.) (Imagine if those blacked-out areas had enough self-generation capacity to support basic needs…) And, create a backfit requirement for fostering a move toward more efficient built structures that produce at least some of their own energy requirements. And, for every kilowatt of capacity that a building falls short of this target, have a set fee (perhaps, to start, $3.50 per watt or $3500 per kilowatt) that will be provided to the local community for building community clean energy systems.
Green Public Buildings, especially schools.
Invest in infrastructure, energy, transportation, otherwise. For example, investing in ‘smart grid’ will reduce the likelihood of large-scale blackouts as the grid will isolate problems rather than enabling cascading failures
Target ‘passive’/natural flood management, with parks, green spaces, otherwise more able to handle flooding inundations. (Note: not much help against nine foot storm surges on top of a high high tide …)
This post started, somewhat unfairly, invoking MB’s excellent 2005 work. While the above doesn’t pretend to provide “the” answers, we should immediately reject those who shallowly call for “rebuilding”. We should look to work like the New York Climate Action Plan for the elements of action to recreate for the 21st — not rebuild for the 20th — century. We don’t wish to and we can’t afford to “recreate” as things were, because they were built in and for a 20th century climate system. Instead, we need to recreate for 21st century realities and do so in a way that lessens our impact on the climate system and lowers the risks from future extreme weather events.
NOTE: There are millions of our fellow citizens suffering. While 10s of millions suffered disruption (for example, my day without power), that disruption is meaningless in face of real travails from dealing with death and injury, dealing with destroyed / heavily damaged homes and communities, uncertain economic prospects, and otherwise. These communities and people need immediate help — whether medical care, food supplies, batteries, shelter, or otherwise. Sadly, climate-driven Sandy has provide a starkly clear statement as to the need for and value of “Big Government”. Gladly, the Republican anti-tax mania haven’t succeeded in drowning government in the bathtub (yet) and FEMA is able to act. Even so, individuals can provide tangible aid through donating to organizations on the ground (not by doing photo-op supply drives a la the Ryan-Romney Potemkin Village charity events). Our hearts, thoughts, and dollars are with our fellow citizens dealing with Sandy’s devastation on their communities and their lives.
Comments Off on ECO New York, ECO New Jersey, ECO East CoastTags:Energy
As for that stupid, evidently the Republican base believes that the best defense against catastrophic climate chaos is to chant, loudly, “USA, USA” as a way to drown out scientific knowledge.
Mitt Romney stood silently as an activist interrupted the GOP presidential candidate’s event in Virginia Beach, Virginia on Thursday afternoon, to ask why he’s been ignoring the connection between climate change and Hurricane Sandy. The former Massachusetts governor quietly smiled, while the man held up a sign that read “End Climate Silence,” and resumed his stump speech without ever addressing the issue:
MAN: Romney! What about climate? That’s what caused this monster storm! Climate change!
Looking at this cover, was (is) Utne magazine the latest Cassandra — an ignored voice providing warnings (accurate warnings) above devastation and disaster to come. And, was Hurricane Sandy (the diminutive of Cassandra) the near real-time epitomization of the disasters to come that Cassandra Utne was/is warning all of us about?
Comments Off on Most prophetic magazine cover ever? Cassandra = Sandy …?Tags:climate change
October 30th, 2012 · Comments Off on Big Dog speaks some truth …
Bill Clinton laid out the issue of the differences betweeen Mittens and President Obama when it comes to climate change and the risk to the United States from extreme weather events like Frankenstorm Sandy:
I was actually listening closely to what the candidates said in these debates. In the first debate, the triumph of the moderate Mitt Romney. You remember what he did? He ridiculed the president. Ridiculed the president for his efforts to fight global warming in economically beneficial ways. He said, ‘Oh, you’re going to turn back the seas.’ In my part of America, we would like it if someone could’ve done that yesterday. All up and down the East Coast, there are mayors, many of them Republicans, who are being told, ‘You’ve got to move these houses back away from the ocean. You’ve got to lift them up. Climate change is going to raise the water levels on a permanent basis. If you want your town insured, you have to do this.’ In the real world, Barack Obama’s policies work better.
From health care to immigration to Climate Change,
“in the real world, Barack Obama’s policies work better.”
Hat tip Buzzfeed and to RL Miller (who let me know about the comments). [Read more →]
Comments Off on Big Dog speaks some truth …Tags:Global Warming
Like billions of others around the world in recent years and this year, Americans have been experiencing “unprecedented” after “unprecedented” weather event. Along with my neighbors, in the Washington, DC, area, I have yet again battened down the hatches for an “unprecedented weather event” (Snowcapolyse, Derecho, Heat Waves, …) that has offices closed, kids home from school, potential power outages, and store shelves emptied. (Note: photo to the right is the grocery store closest to my home, with shelves emptied by people heeding warnings to be prepared for a multiple days without power.)
What we are seeing has been referred to as a ‘climate on steroids’. Bicyclists have won the Tour de France without using steroids but Lance Armstrong won seven with … Professional baseball players have wowed me with home runs without using steroids but flooded the stands with homers in the steroid era … Blizzards, wind storms, droughts, floods, hurricanes occurred throughout the millenia before humanity’s impact on the climate became significant but records are tumbling as humanity continues to pack the climate system with a variety of ‘steroids’, especially greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use.
Too few fundamentally understand the linkage between humanity’s activities and increasing climate disruption.
Too many people fail to understand how “unprecedented” after “record” after “unprecedented” weather event are within the predictions that have come from climate scientists, whose work to understand the impact of human activities on the climate lead us to an understanding that a warming planet will drive climate disruption.
One reason: meteorologists, weather forecasters, and TV weather reporters hesitancy to use the words “climate change” when discussing “unprecedented” weather events. This occurs for a variety of reasons:
The difference between the immediacy of weather and the general trend of climate;
The scientific challenge of “attribution”, as people tip toe around the issue because they don’t know how to express “it is hard to understand this weather pattern without including climate change, which has put a thumb the scales to create the conditions for worsening the event.”
The reality that most people don’t think in a systems-of-systems manner and that human-driven climate change is simply a ‘factor’ influencing any specific weather event.
The difficulty of injecting ‘long term’ issues into the discussion when seeking to warn people that it is time to empty the grocery store shelves.
Meteorologists tendency to look to the problems of short-term weather forecasting models (and, as a consumer, when looking at “weather.com” stating that my zip code has a 15% chance of rain at that specific moment while looking outside the window and seeing a massive downpour) and falsely projecting this to assert problems in climate modeling. This is one of the reasons why too many weather forecasters deny the science related to climate change.
Fear of vocal climate denialist attacks when a meteorologist speaks honestly and forthrightly about climate disruption to help people connect the dots.
Through 2012, with massive breaking of record hot temperature records, massive wildfires, substantial damage to the agricultural system due to droughts, the Derecho, and otherwise, a growing number of meteorologists have broken through the climate silence and forecast the facts.
With National Geographic reporting that sea level rise is already accelerating at three to four times the global rate in the Northeast due to climate change, impacts are expected to be worse than if the same exact storm would have hit several years ago.
A simple truthful statement that helps inform people that climate change is increasing our risks from extreme weather events. It doesn’t take much to include truthful information about climate change in discussions of extreme weather events. While watching, with rapt concern about Sandy’s potential impact on my community, The Weather Channel, a notable item: zero discussion of climate change amid the fleeting leaps from one weather besieged reporter on a beach to another. The absence of comments like Holthaus‘ leave watchers, at best, partially informed. To discuss weather events as “unprecedented” and “record-breaking” without connecting the dots to climate change’s (pdf) influence on the situation does not represent truthful reporting.
Thus, you should consider as untruthful those who discuss (especially those who have the opportunity for long analytical discussions explaining events) extreme weather events without raising how humanity’s thumb on the scale through climate change.
The following video of the Queen of Denial seemed relevant for those meteorologists and weather forecasters who fail to discuss climate change (or, even worse, reject the global scientific consensus on the subject) …
While far from the ‘breaking news’ MTV created with a “boxers vs briefs” question to Bill Clinton, MTV interviewer Sway Calloway did what journalist moderators at the three presidential and one vice-presidential debates were unable (unwilling) to do: ask a quite serious question about climate change.
Until this year global climate change has been discussed in every presidential debate since 1988. It was a big part of your previous campaign but pushed back on the back burner. Given the urgency of the threat, do you feel that we’re moving quickly enough on this issue, number one, and Samantha from New Jersey wants to know what will you do to make it a priority?
And, from President Barack Obama, Calloway received a serious answer from the get-go:
The answer is number one, we’re not moving as fast as we need to
Absolutely true …
And there is a huge contrast in this campaign between myself and Governor Romney
Absolutely true …
I am surprised it didn’t come up in one of the debates.
Terrifyingly true … although President Obama and Vice President Biden literally had hours of opportunities to raise the issue since, after all, it is related to domestic and foreign policy, to budget issues and security, and to energy issues where we had President Obama and Mitt Romney arguing over who was the better friend to fossil fuels. (Hint … Romney did win this but the President made him work for the title.)
There are a lot of things we have done a lot of things in the last four years. We have already doubled the fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. … We have doubled clean energy production — wind, solar, biofuels — … The next step is to deal with buildings and really ramp up our efficiency in buildings.
True, true, and true … these are important achievements and plans.
Speculating about an “October Surprise” has long been part-and-parcel of presidential elections. International crises, domestic economic troubles, and unearthed scandalous events/behavior have all had their moments in the month before election day. In 2012, we have a serious potential that the October Surprise will come from an unusual direction and a seemingly non-partisan actor: Mother Nature.
Along the East Coast, residents from Florida to Maine are dealing with the storm’s impacts or watching Hurricane Sandy with an increasingly concerned eye. Predications, at the moment, have a Northeast United States Sandy landfall for Halloween — anywhere between the North Carolina coast to the Boston, MA, area. And, there are mounting concerns that this could be a true Perfect Storm. Uncertainty as to whether, where, and how serious an impact …
However, what we know is that 2012 has been a devastating year in terms of climate disruption damage — floods, droughts, severe weather events, and otherwise around the globe. In the United States, heat waves with massive breaking of high temperature records, likely the hottest year on record, huge portions of the nation with drought, many floods, the shocking Derecho in the east, significant crop damage, and … While some wish to keep their heads in the sand in denial, we are seeing (sadly in real time) humanity’s thumb on the scale and nature of otherwise “natural” events. Even without human-driven climate change, we would have rain and snow, droughts and floods, balmy days and hurricanes, and uncertainty in agricultural production. What scientists are increasingly agreed on is that the amount of and extent of such extremes increase with mounting climate change, thus the term: climate disruption.
Sandy’s low-pressure system is “highly unusual” (according to The Weather Channel) in terms of such low-pressure in the Northeast at this time of year. “Unusual” is an increasingly heard term, it seems, from meteorologists amid mounting climate disruption.
In a quick review, the equation is simple: more climate heat = bigger storms. Some indications of climate disruption links to Sandy:
There are several climate connections for Sandy:
– hotter than normal ocean temps means heavier rainfall and possibly strong storm:
How’s this for some election-year timing: The East Coast faces the real possibility of taking a battering next week from a “perfect storm” roaring in from the Atlantic — right at the tail end of a campaign in which President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and their debate moderators have all drawn criticism for avoiding discussion of climate change.
The brewing, blustery mess could affect the same region that was already knocked around by this summer’s derecho and soaked in 2011 by Hurricane Irene. And it could come just two months after Hurricane Isaac forced the GOP to cancel the first day of its convention in Tampa.
“Sandy is yet another reminder that the candidates should stop competing over who can poison the weather faster with increased oil, gas and coal production. If they fear that honesty about global warming could cost them votes, they should instead be more concerned that climate silence costs lives.”
Let us all hope that Sandy will divert from off the coast and, if there is landfall, that Sandy does not cause significant damage or add additional loss of life to climate chaos’ toll. No matter Sandy’s physical path, however, we need to wonder whether the storm will impact the path of the 2012 Presidential election by (finally) crashing through the climate silence barrier.
100 … 100 percent. Such a ’round’ and definitive figure provides the basis for a very clear, simple target to think about.
With all the delays toward action related to climate mitigation and the mounting impacts of climate disruption around the globe, the concept of 80 by 50 (80 percent reduction carbon emissions by 2050 — from 1990 levels) is increasingly absurd as a standard for planning to foster a prosperous and secure climate-friendly future. While seemingly absurd in a situation where ‘business as usual’ shows increased emissions in 2050 (and driving car into the wall at 60 miles per hour (or 100 kilometers per hour) by the end of the century), compared to today, targeting a carbon-neutral future economic system seems a sensible objective (to get our speed ‘down’ to 20 miles per hour). 100 …
Ikea: This Swedish global powerhouse announced a doubling of its renewable energy investments, “to resist the ongoing volatility of conventional fuel prices.” Ikea targets meeting 70 percent of its electricity needs with renewable energy by 2015 and 100 percent by 2020. And, in other 100%, Ikea plans to that 100% of the light bulbs it sells will be long-lasting, efficient LEDs; 100% of the oils used in candles and foods will come from sustainable sources, and that 100% of its cotton supplies from sources certified by the Better Cotton Initiative.
Saudia Arabia: Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud,l announced that Saudi Arabia has determined to move the country to 100% low carbon (renewable energy plus nuclear power) electricity sources. Right now, Saudi Arabia’s electricity market is dominated by oil generation facilities. An important point: the Saudi decision certainly cannot be seen outside the context of climate change but it is truly driven by hard-headed economic reasons. For (not just) Saudi Arabia, the rich complexity of hydrocarbon molecules just have too much value to see them go up in smoke. The Saudis intend to capture that value:
use its vast oil reserves for other goods, such as plastics and polymers. “Oil is more precious for us underground than as a fuel source,” [Prince Turki] said. “If we can get to the point where we can replace fossil fuels and use oil to produce other products that are useful, that would be very good for the world.”
These are not isolated developments.
Month after month, the U.S. electrical system is heading toward a lower-carbon output system. This is being driven due to very low natural gas prices, increased nuclear power efficiencies, and ever-increasing capacity of renewable electricity generation (hydropower, biomass, wind, and solar). In the first nine months of 2012, the capacity of commercialscale solar systems jumped by more than one-third (with the addition of 936 megawatts to give a total operating capacity of 3.37 gigawatts). The United States is far from alone in seeing such changes in its electrical grid.
Ikea is not the only company accelerating renewable energy investments with near-term targets of 100 percent renewable energy. Zotos International has installed wind turbines that meet 50 percent of its electricity needs, buys ‘clean energy’ for the other 50 percent, and is working on plans for self-generating 100 percent of their requirements. Even some utilities have such targets. For example, the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) is rapidly adding renewable energy systems with a goal of 100 percent renewable energy (to exceed the state’s target of 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030). (Of relevance, the EPA’s list of 100% Green Power users.)
Saudi Arabia is not alone. Oil-producingDenmark plans to eliminate fossil fuels from its domestic energy use (electricity, heating, and transportation) by 2050, with significant near-term targets for reducing fossil fuels in its electricity and heating markets.
100 …
100 percent clean energy and 100 percent reduction in the economy’s carbon footprint might seem like tall leaps but these are necessary, achievable, and even profitable paths to take for individuals, companies, communities, nations, and the global economy. This ‘hot renewable energy news’ comes as we learn that September 2012 was tied for the hottest global September ever. It is well past time, as a society, to take serious measures to reduce climate disruption risks. As part of that path forward, we should celebrate these recent “100” announcement and redouble our efforts to add more to the list.
Obama for America (OFA), the Obama-Biden reelection effort, asked for feedback in an email likely sent to millions. I expect that many provided substantive feedback. Below the fold is mine.
Earlier this evening, a rather troubling piece came to my attention. Keeping Climate Change Out of the Presidential Campaign wrong-headedly celebrates that the Presidential political campaign has not included discussion of climate change issues.
The cost of climate disruption to the global community — in monetary, quality of life, and lives — is mounting. Consider, alone, the $10s of billions of economic cost to the United States through drought and heat damage-driven crop losses in 2012 … alone.
The tail end of risk curves, according to scientific analysis, from unchecked climate change lay out truly catastrophic climate chaos scenarios that should terrify any rational individual.
Climate activists are aghast that climate change did not make it into either of the first two presidential debates. Prior to the first debate, environmental organizations reportedly delivered a petition to moderator Jim Lehrer to bring climate change up for discussion. They were ignored. For supporters, being ignored was probably the best thing that could have happened in support of the politics of climate change.
2012 issue cover (drawn and released prior to Hurricane Sandy).
domestic economic troubles, and unearthed scandalous events/behavior have all had their moments in the month before election day. In 2012, we have a serious potential that the October Surprise will come from an unusual direction and a seemingly non-partisan actor: Mother Nature.
100 … 100 percent. Such a ’round’ and definitive figure provides the basis for a very clear, simple target to think about.
audi Arabia, the rich complexity of hydrocarbon molecules just have too much value to see them go up in smoke. The 
