Guest Column

Comments (3)
Wednesday, September 11, 2013

October 29 marks the one-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy. The cost of the largest Atlantic hurricane ever was the tragic loss of 159 human lives and $68 billion in damage. Experts predict 10 Sandy-like storms by the end of the century, and chances are the Bay State will be slammed by at least one. The Cambridge-based Union of Concerned Scientists forecasts that Boston should expect today’s once-a-century coastal impacts to become once-a-year outcomes during that time period. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development recently named Boston eighth among the world’s major cities most threatened by flooding due to sea level rise.

The prevailing view among meteorologists is that superstorms are the product of climate change and the attendant warmer and warmer oceans that energize such storms. At its annual meeting in Boston this year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science agreed that climate change is producing extreme weather. We’re experiencing weather on steroids and we have to prepare for its uncertain and possibly catastrophic effects.

The current challenge is not so much about saving the planet from heat-trapping gases as it is about saving us from a warming planet. It’s not throwing in the towel, but rather facing the realities of living with, coping with, and adapting to the effects of global warming caused by emissions from fossil fuel-burning power plants and motor vehicles. With so much carbon pollution already in the air and our traditional fossil fuel energy production and use patterns locked in, we have no choice but to live with its consequences. Sure, we need to continue to reduce air pollution and build renewable energy projects using the sun, wind, and tides. And we need to continue to increase energy efficiencies in cars, trucks, utilities, and appliances. But we also need to adapt to the effects of climate change.

With 85 percent of Massachusetts’ 6.7 million residents living within 50 miles of the coast, we are vulnerable; we need a comprehensive adaptation management plan that will show us how to lessen storm impacts to our built and natural environment and how to use both to protect us. Specifically, we need a plan that assesses the vulnerability of the commonwealth’s electrical grid, buildings, roads, airports, dams, water supplies, and sewage treatment plants and then recommends ways of strengthening them. We need a plan that recognizes the protective value of our beaches and wetlands, forests and rivers, and then explains how to use their natural resiliencies to buffer people from the disastrous impacts of stronger, more frequent storms. Finally, we need a plan that identifies our most vulnerable human populations and determines how best to insulate them from the near-certain ravages of superstorms.

Last summer, President Obama said: “Those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it—they’re busy dealing with it.” It’s now time for Massachusetts to deal with it and prepare a plan that guides us in living with the effects and unpredictability of an ever-warming planet.•

Jack Clarke is director of public policy and government relations for Mass Audubon.

Comments (3)
Post a Comment

Global cooling and the record increase of the polar ice cap.

For readers, please look up the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period. The earth has always warmed and cooled and will continue to do so. The idea that a climate shouldn't change and go through those cycles is completely illogical.

But WHY? .... Among other reasons, one aspect:

"The most consistent and nauseating feature of the environmental movement is its profound narcissism, which manifests primarily in two ways:

1) The belief that the mean global temperature of the current (or last) century is “the” correct state of affairs, any deviation from which is abhorrent and unnatural, and which must be maintained in perpetuity.

2) The belief that they, the environmentally anointed, can understand – and effect – something as intricately complex as the climate of the entire planet."

Posted by Ben on 9.11.13 at 10:30

Ah, Ben. Even if you are right and almost all scientists are wrong, we are going to run out of oil. Even if you are right, pollution from fossil fuels is harmful. We have to power things other ways. Our economy is in bad shape. Going after new kinds of energy is good in many ways and totally necessary too. Do you think we should develop greener energy?

Posted by SDudgens on 9.13.13 at 9:47

Almost all scientists have been wrong about a lot of things and plenty don't subscribe to the fact that man made climate change is real (they are certainly muffled). I've yet to hear a convincing argument from the climate change crowd on why current climate conditions are caused by man but the little ice age and medieval warming period were not. Not to mention that the hysteria has gone from global cooling to global warming to the, on its face illogical, term "climate change". As if the earth's climate changing is inherantly bad. As if it hasn't always gone through warming and cooling cycles at all, contrary to things we know about earth. Lastly, once sufficient control is placed on our every move by our government, at what point will that control let up? In other words, how will we even know we succeeded in "righting" the climate? You can see why the whole movement is based on hysteria over logic.

Earth is billions of years old and it wasn't broken in the last 100. We can't nail a 10 day forecast and we're going to fix earth's weather? Oh, it's just priceless when you step back and think about it except for the fact that so many people actually believe it.

Having said all that, even though I don't think we can control weather I'd like to keep earth clean and of course I want to continue to develop alternate and sustainable energy. That has nothing to do with the lack of reason behind the climate change movement. And we can do it without expanding gov't control and further wrecking our economy in the process.

Posted by Ben on 9.14.13 at 8:22



New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

Better Later?
More joining the ranks in favor of a later start time for high schools
Between the Lines: Riding the Brand
Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker are more afraid to lose than inspired to win.
More Than A Coal Job
A veteran of the Mount Tom energy plant begins again.
From Our Readers
In Satoshi We Trust?
Outside the Cage
How solid is the case for organic and cage-free egg production?
Between the Lines: Practically Organic
Does the organic farming movement make perfect the enemy of good?
Scene Here: The Kitchen Garden Farm