WAYNE CREED: Question Authority on Climate Change

By WAYNE CREED

September 8, 2014

According to the National Climate Assessment released last month, the risk to the overall economy from coastal climate impacts (sea level rise) is substantial because coastal counties account for almost 50 percent of gross domestic product (also the most densely populated). The value of insurable properties in coastal counties tops $14 trillion.

The latest Bloomberg report, “Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States,” leans towards the CO2 problem model, noting that if current emissions stay the same, by 2050 between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide, growing to $238 to $507 billion by 2100. That is, by the year 2100, at least $701 billion worth of existing coastal property will be below sea level. This model has sent Wall Street into a tizzy, with Hank Paulson, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Robert Rubin, George Shultz, and other business leaders clamoring for political action. The important name in the bunch is Tom Steyer, one of Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s biggest backers. Interestingly, as was reported in the Wave, McAuliffe has just reinstituted the Climate Change and Resiliency Commission to “attack” this problem, and the Eastern Shorekeeper is also involved.

So, what exactly is sea level rise, and when and how did it start? The term is actually Mean Sea Level (my dad used to work as party chief for the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (now U.S. National Geodetic Survey), and he would travel from Bangor, Maine, to Corpus Christi, Texas, and then back again, collecting coastal elevation data used in monitoring MSL along coastal areas). The height of Mean Sea Level is given relative to a certain, arbitrarily chosen reference or datum level (such as tidal datum, or North American Datum 1927). It may rise or fall, relative to the zero point of the reference scale. The Dutch, being so vulnerable to the sea, were one of the first to start tracking MSL, and established the Dutch Ordnance Datum (NAP) in 1683. The big problem is that the zero point reference is meant to be stable over time, but tide gauges and bench marks may move vertically as a result of movements of the earth’s crust. Complicating the problem is that regional Mean Sea Level may differ from one area to the next, and regional sea level graphs cannot simply be extrapolated to show global mean sea level over time.

CONTINUED FROM FIRST PAGE

When the Climate Change and Resiliency Commission convenes its next meeting, CO2 levels will have the laser dot on their forehead, but is CO2 the only culprit? The sea level has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, whereas CO2 levels did not significantly increase until almost 100 years later. Most geologists suggest the Little Ice Age ended about 1850; however, in some circles there is the belief that the recovery is continuing and may account for a substantial portion of actual sea level rise.

Since the ending of the last (big) Ice Age, sea level has risen by about 120 meters. The past 10,000 years saw the most dramatic rise, around 35 meters. Since 1810 the rate has increased again, to 19 cm per 100 years (using Dutch coastal data from 1891-2012). Reading this, however, you would have to infer that tracing the subtle variations of sea level over time can be rather subjective, and prone to the whim of variables, such as trying to separate local from global influences, as well as geologic subsidence and settling of filled areas (such as filling in marsh areas to create the beach front at Cape Charles).

Sea level rise (as well as global warming) is a real thing, yet one has to wonder if over-stressing about the effects of CO2 is the correct path. It is my fear that groups like the Climate Change and Resiliency Commission will have little to do with addressing MSL rise, but more to do the fulfilling the current agenda of the northeast bourgeoisie, using phantasms to ultimately concentrate more and more wealth and power in the coffers of the 1%. This may provide interesting (hypocritical) conversation at certain dinner parties, but arbitrarily forcing CO2 reductions on the world economy could have a catastrophic effect. In the end, is sending a body blow to our already fragile economy, as well as those of developing countries, the right approach? Certainly, working to ensure sustainable economic growth worldwide, moving more people out of poverty and into productive societies, would seem to be the priority (even if we do lower CO2 levels, in the end it may only mean we’ll have to build those sea walls a couple of inches lower). Closing the door on economic mobility opens the door to unrest, fanaticism, tyranny, and despotism, as we are currently witnessing in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Egypt, et al.).

Watch the Climate Change and Resiliency Commission very closely, and deconstruct them thoroughly. These things always sound good, but the underbelly is usually bloated with nefarious intentions. In the United States, the official poverty rate stands at around 15 percent based on the national poverty line, which is equivalent to around $16 per person per day. Of the 46.5 million Americans living in poverty, 20.4 million live under half the poverty line. These figures are based on the official Census data. An alternative study on U.S. poverty by Luke Shaefer and Kathryn Edin, using a different dataset from the one employed for the official U.S. poverty measure, paints a much darker picture, and shows that millions of Americans live on less than $2 a day. The cynic in me has to question whether climate change legislation is meant to truly address ecological issues or is just another tool to be used to weaken local grass roots economies (and the freedoms they promote), widen the economic divide, and ultimately drive more and more of the population into a state of governmental dependency.

Addressing design and engineering problems using socio-political methodologies is always prone to failure and unintended consequences. Of course CO2 should be reduced, mainly because current approaches are wasteful and stupid, and could be done so much better (the BMW i3 BEV now gets a converted 124 mpg with lots of style and power!). The role of the agricultural community is to feed the world, yet there are still many improvements that can be made to make them more efficient, as well as cleaner (reducing methane and CO2 emissions) and at the same time, more profitable. This is a (geo) design issue, and it has to be an iterative approach. For this design to fully succeed, it has to be just as economically efficient as it is ecologically sound.

As was put forth by Bloomberg’s Risky Business report, coastal communities may have to accept and also adapt to sea level rise in order to mitigate the severe economic damage that may occur from it. In our favor is that sea level rise is fairly slow, inherently local, and somewhat variable. Heavy-handed, draconian regulations used to force change too quickly will ultimately punish the underserved segments of society who can least afford to take it on. Given what we’ve seen in Cape Charles the last few years, my recommendation regarding whatever policy for Virginia comes out of the Climate Change and Resiliency Commission is to sleep with one eye open, and always question authority.