Environment and Ecology

environment - ecology - nature - habitat - gaia - permaculture - systems - sustainability ...

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Climate Change
CLIMATE CHANGE

7 Crazy Things That Are Going To Happen As Sea Levels Rise

E-mail Print PDF

Headline: 7 Crazy Things That Are Going To Happen As Sea Levels Rise

 

Meta: Sea levels are currently rising, and that’s not good. But what exactly is going to happen. Here are 7 crazy things.

 

H1: 7 Crazy Things That Are Going To Happen As Sea Levels Rise

 

 

In the movie The Day After Tomorrow, the entire earth is struck by a catastrophic weather pattern that causes a massive rise in sea levels and ushers in a new ice age. It’s a pretty cheesy movie that is high on special effects and low on quality acting.

 

How likely is an event like that? Will we be struck by some sort of rogue storm that transforms the face of the planet?

 

Probably not.

 

But we do know that sea levels are rising and it certainly is changing the face of the earth. Although it’s happening at a much slower rate, the long term effects will be incredibly devastating.

 

In this post we’re going to explain why sea levels are rising, what will happen as a result, and how cities are preparing for it.

 

Why Are Sea Levels Rising?

 

London_4C.jpg

City of London. Image Via

 

There isn’t much doubt that sea levels are rising. From 1880 - 2009, the global sea level rose approximately 8 inches. That means that all the oceans are now approximately 8 inches higher now than they were 150 years ago.

 

Even more frightening, the average annual rate of the global rise dramatically increased from 1993 - 2008, up 65 - 90 percent over the previous years. The waters are rising faster, with the U.S. East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico increasing the fastest.

 

But why is this happening? Several reasons:

Read more...
 

Trump and Climate Catastrophe

E-mail Print PDF

Trump and Climate Catastrophe

Trump Digs Coal

Photo Credit: BBC, Getty Images.

John Bellamy Foster is the editor of MR and a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon. He is coauthor, with Paul Burkett, of Marx and the Earth (Haymarket, 2017).
This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps, and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.

Donald Trump, January 2, 20141

The alarm bells are ringing. The climate-change denialism of the Trump administration, coupled with its goal of maximizing fossil-fuel extraction and consumption at all costs, constitutes, in the words of Noam Chomsky, “almost a death knell for the human species.” As noted climatologist Michael E. Mann has declared, “I fear that this may be game over for the climate.”2

The effects of the failure to mitigate global warming will not of course come all at once, and will not affect all regions and populations equally. But just a few years of inaction in the immediate future could lock in dangerous climate change that would be irreversible for the next ten thousand years.3 It is feared that once the climatic point of no return—usually seen as a 2°C increase in global average temperatures—is reached, positive-feedback mechanisms will set in, accelerating warming trends and leading, in the words of James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the foremost U.S. climate scientist, to “a dynamic situation that is out of [human] control,” propelling the world toward the 4°C (or even higher) future that is thought by scientists to portend the end of civilization, in the sense of organized human society.4

Read more...
 

America Doesn’t Have to Choose Between the Economy and the Climate

E-mail Print PDF

America Doesn’t Have to Choose Between the Economy and the Climate

by Helen Mountford Helen Mountford and Joel Jaeger - March 06, 2017

Solar panels at Curtis H. Stanton Energy Cente

Solar panels at Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center. Photo by OUC Reliable One/Wikimedia Commons

This post is part of WRI’s blog series, The Trump Administration. The series analyzes policies and actions by the administration and their implications for climate change, energy, economics and more.

New EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt recently said “I believe that we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs, and pro-environment. We don’t have to choose between the two.” While we don’t always see eye to eye with Mr. Pruitt, on this one we have common ground.

For many years, we’ve heard that economic growth and environmental protection are in conflict. However, there is growing and compelling evidence that this simply is not the case: A strong economy and a healthy environment are not only complementary, but each depends on the other.

The Economic Case for Climate Action

The negative economic impacts of environmental damage are becoming clearer. Risky Business, a project founded by Mike Bloomberg, Hank Paulson and Tom Steyer, has mapped the potential costs of climate change, finding that states like Missouri and Illinois risk up to a 70 percent decline in average annual crop yields by the end of the century due to rising temperatures. Billions of dollars of property in states like Florida and California will likely be underwater by midcentury. And it is not just climate change that poses a cost to our economy and our communities. Nationwide, the health impacts of air pollution are estimated to be equivalent to 4 percent of GDP each year. By acting now, we can avoid increasing costs down the road.

But it’s not just about preventing risks. Climate action can actively benefit the economy, according to new work from the New Climate Economy. The key drivers of economic growth – resource efficiency, infrastructure investment and innovation – can be harnessed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a logical connection: a more efficient economy is a more productive economy, and a more efficient economy also emits less carbon.

The economic case for climate action is only becoming stronger as time goes on and the costs of clean energy and other technologies continue to drop. Since 2008, the cost of utility-scale solar energy in the United States has fallen 64 percent and the cost of wind energy has fallen 41 percent, making them increasingly cost-competitive with traditional fossil fuel power, even without subsidies. Even without considering the air pollution and climate benefits, clean energy makes economic sense.

The US Is Decoupling Economic Growth from Carbon Emissions

Many U.S. states are already proving that it is possible to have a strong economy and a strong environment. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia expanded their economies while reducing energy-related carbon emissions from 2000 to 2014, according to Brookings. This includes red states like Kentucky, Alaska and Georgia, as well as blue states like California, New York and Massachusetts. This is an economic issue, not a political one.

As a whole, from 2000 to 2015, the United States grew its GDP by 30 percent while reducing its energy-related emissions by 10 percent.


Source: Brookings
Read more...
 

Can the United States Achieve a Low Carbon Economy by 2050?

E-mail Print PDF

EESI - Environmental and Energy Study Institute

Can the United States Achieve a Low Carbon Economy by 2050?

Thursday, March 9
2:00 pm - 3:30 pm

Room G11 – Dirksen Senate Office Building
Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE

A live webcast will be streamed at 2:00 PM EST at www.eesi.org/livecast (wireless connection permitting)

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to a briefing showcasing two new reports on how to transition the United States toward a low carbon economy. The reports, From Risk to Return: Investing in a Clean Energy Economy and the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, present a range of pathways that can achieve deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2050. These pathways involve mixtures of: energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, increased carbon sequestration in U.S. lands, and reductions in non-CO2 emissions. These pathways rely on commercial or near-commercial technologies that American companies are adopting and developing. The briefing will explore how deeper investment in clean energy can yield long-term dividends for the American economy.

In a low carbon economy, total electricity generation could double between now and 2050, presenting a prime opportunity to reap the benefits of investing in clean energy. An average of $320 billion a year in additional private sector investment would be needed between now and mid-century to reduce total energy sector CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050. This bold step forward could in turn yield an average of over $360 billion in annual savings from reduced spending on fossil fuels.

Karl Hausker has worked for 30 years in the fields of climate change, energy, and environment in a career that has spanned the federal government, research institutions, NGOs, and consulting. Much of his work has focused on the energy and transportation sectors and on low carbon, resilient development strategies.

At WRI's U.S. Climate Initiative, Noah Kaufman focuses on carbon pricing and other market-based climate solutions. He has previously served as Deputy Associate Director of Energy & Climate Change at the White House Council on Environmental Quality and as a Senior Consultant at NERA Economic Consulting.

This event is free and open to the public. Please RSVP to expedite check-in.

 

EPA enforcement office may be next on the Trump team’s hit list

E-mail Print PDF

EPA enforcement office may be next on the Trump team’s hit list

By Kate Sheppard and Nick Visser on Feb 9, 2017 1:57 pm

This story was originally published by the Huffington Post and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The Trump administration is considering closing down the enforcement division of the Environmental Protection Agency, according to a report Wednesday evening from Inside EPA.

The new administration is reportedly looking to close the Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance, or OECA, and instead let individual program offices (such as the air program, the water program, and others) handle enforcement. The outlet Inside EPA quoted “a source familiar with the plan” who says the Trump administration intends to “disassemble the enforcement office … take it, break it up, and move it back into the program offices.”

In a statement emailed to the Huffington Post, the agency’s press office said the “EPA does not have a confirmed administrator and we cannot speculate on future plans for the agency.”

Closing the office would almost certainly mean less enforcement work happens at the agency. OECA handles both civil and criminal enforcement of the country’s core environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The office is an independent body with about 3,000 employees who “work to advance environmental justice by protecting communities most vulnerable to pollution.”

“Dissolving OECA would have a disastrous effect on EPA’s ability to do its job,” said Nicholas Conger, who served as communications director for OECA from July 2013 through March 2016 and later worked in the EPA administrator’s public affairs office. Conger is now the press secretary of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Americans depend on a strong federal enforcement presence, and that depends on having a program that is directly focused on holding polluters accountable and ensuring they fix their problems.”

Myron Ebell, a climate change denier who led the Trump administration’s transition at the EPA before returning to the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted in an email with HuffPost that most environmental enforcement efforts were largely the responsibility of individual offices before the creation of the OECA in the 1990s. Ebell has previously recommended the agency slash its workforce by two-thirds, from about 15,000 to 5,000 employees, and cut the EPA budget in half.

Environmental advocates were quick to point out that Scott Pruitt — the Oklahoma attorney general Trump picked to lead the EPA — made almost the same move back home. Pruitt closed his office’s Environmental Protection Unit not long after he took office in 2011.

Pruitt’s online biography describes him as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,” and says he “established Oklahoma’s first federalism unit to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government.” Republicans voted Pruitt’s nomination out of committee last week over a Democratic boycott; he is expected to go up for a vote in the full Senate, though a date for the vote has not been scheduled.

“Scott Pruitt endangered the health and welfare of Oklahomans when he closed his own environmental enforcement unit there, and now it looks like he wants to do the exact same thing at the EPA, imperiling families across America,” Liz Perera, climate policy director at the Sierra Club, said in a statement.

Republican-led efforts in Congress have already begun to roll back much of the environmental progress made under the administration of President Barack Obama. Last week, leaders in the House voted to overturn a rule meant to protect waterways from coal mining operations and another that requires energy companies to disclose payments from foreign governments.

Source: http://grist.org/article/epa-enforcement-office-may-be-next-on-the-trump-teams-hit-list/?utm_content=bufferc5b43&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 


Page 2 of 8

Choose Language


The GURUS & ACTIVISTS


nakliyat evden eve nakliyat evden eve nakliyat gebze evden eve nakliyat