Global Warming, Rising Seas, and Solutions

[warpus]

I'm not even sure that "rising sea levels" are even one of the more disastrous or difficult consequences, when you consider:

-increased frequency of severe weather events (in Australia, more drought and bushfires, also more intense flooding when it does occur in La Niña years)
-large-scale refugee migrations
-major damage to agriculture due to shifting temperature and rainfall patterns
-shifting disease patterns
-the economic and social consequences from all the above disruptions to business as usual

But you know, let's deceive ourselves that "build seawalls" is the be-all and end-all of adaptation.

This man is right.

However, for the purposes of the exercise I will suggest a solution

...

The trouble is you are going to need a large area.

The USA produces about 18% of the CO2.

If the oceans of the world were to rise by 1m and 18% of that were stored in the USA the whole country would have to be covered to an average depth of 6m. Alternatively Kansas could be surrounded in one massive dam and flooded to an average depth of 285m.

It will be cheaper to raise the sea walls by 1m around cities and other valuable areas and retreat from others.

What you do is you build a 2km high wall around Florida and continuously pump water into the state as ocean levels rise, hopefully at the same rate, so that the ocean levels stay the same. If you run out of room you can increase the height of the wall.

That way you don't even have to worry about global warming and maybe even build the walls up all the way out into space, if you have to. When that happens you have a space elevator and humanity #1

 

[Skwink]

I think the best solution would be to put a ton of water into spaceships and fly it away.

 

[Synobun]

"play God"?

There are a lot of people who think the only path to take is to somehow "solve climate change" (e.g. removing natural cycles from the planet to appease Human desires).

 

[Tee Kay]

How many times do we have to go over this? You melt Greenland and Antarctica, you get salt water, not fresh. You raise the ocean level, you destroy coastal fresh ground water by salt contamination. So you get less fresh water. You have more violent storms, and you have more floods that wash the water down to the ocean, and you have less fresh water as the aquifers do not get replenished. You get more desertification, as heat bakes the water out of the ground and plants. You destroy forests, and the ground can contain less water, so you have more rushing to the oceans, and less where people can use it.

No one has ever presented a warming scenario that I have ever seen where warming means anything other than less water for human use.

This really needs to be posted again and again.

 

[BasketCase]

No one has ever presented a warming scenario that I have ever seen where warming means anything other than less water for human use.

Now posting one.

Global warming means warmer air. Warmer air can absorb more water vapor. Which is where most of our fresh water comes from to begin with. This has been common knowledge for a long time--the reason you've never seen this is because you didn't look for it.

 

[pi-r8]

We're all doomed, aren't we?

We need massive, large-scale investment in clean energy tech immediately if we're going to avoid catastrophic global warming.

Meanwhile, half the population thinks that it's not happening at all (or thinks it's happening naturally and is somehow beneficial) and the other half thinks that something trivial like a seawall will be enough to stop it.

Yeah, there's no way our civilization is going to survive this mess.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yeah, there's no way our civilization is going to survive this mess.

Comments like these give fuel to denialists. Don't overdo it.

 

[BasketCase]

Denialist here to solve that one. The answer is no. That comment didn't give fuel to denialists. It's just pointless. If we're doomed, why bother attending this thread?? Head over to one of the CFC hot-babe threads.

pi-r8 is correct with the "we can't solve the problem" part, though. Because the worst polluters (China and India) are refusing to change course. The problem cannot be solved unless they do, and the only way they will is if we go to war against them and force them to do it. Which in today's political landscape, is not going to happen.

 

[Tee Kay]

Myth 1 : China and India are the "worst polluters"
Myth 2 : China and India are refusing to change course.
Myth 3 : The only way for them to change course is defeat in war.

But come on, only three misinformations in three sentences. Surely you can do better than that.

 

[Arwon]

There are a lot of people who think the only path to take is to somehow "solve climate change" (e.g. removing natural cycles from the planet to appease Human desires).

I'm not sure which strawman you're invoking here, but I think it is the one where you think that scientists and policy makers are unaware of the sun and cyclical climate patterns. Feel free to correct me if it's a different strawman.

 

[Synobun]

I'm not sure which strawman you're invoking here, but I think it is the one where you think that scientists and policy makers are unaware of the sun and cyclical climate patterns. Feel free to correct me if it's a different strawman.

What are you talking about? There are a lot of activists and generally uneducated people running around saying that we need to improve renewable energy and change our policies to "save the planet" and "solve global warming". There is no saving and no solving to be done in this situation, the best you can do is prepare for the damages and improve what we have. Reducing our strain on the planet will obviously help, but as I said, there's no saving to be done.

 

[Dale]

I'm not even sure that "rising sea levels" are even one of the more disastrous or difficult consequences, when you consider:

-increased frequency of severe weather events (in Australia, more drought and bushfires, also more intense flooding when it does occur in La Niña years)
-large-scale refugee migrations
-major damage to agriculture due to shifting temperature and rainfall patterns
-shifting disease patterns
-the economic and social consequences from all the above disruptions to business as usual

But you know, let's deceive ourselves that "build seawalls" is the be-all and end-all of adaptation.

You forgot Alien Invasion. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...zDPU3mNYw8ThYJ8Dg&sig2=wlPepxsf1Ok4eIQ1S-0TUQ

 

[Tee Kay]

What are you talking about? There are a lot of activists and generally uneducated people running around saying that we need to improve renewable energy and change our policies to "save the planet" and "solve global warming". There is no saving and no solving to be done in this situation, the best you can do is prepare for the damages and improve what we have. Reducing our strain on the planet will obviously help, but as I said, there's no saving to be done.

Right, there's no saving to be done... that is to say, the planet doesn't need saving. But humans do. The planet will survive just fine, perhaps minus several thousand species, with a few degrees rise in temperature. Unfortunately humans, with a few exceptions, will find the planet harder and a poorer place to live on.

Some people mistake "solving global warming" for "reversing the planet to the state before the Industrial Revolution". Renewable energy sources don't suck carbon out of the atmosphere, but they do prevent more carbon from entering the atmosphere. Thus to "solve global warming" is to actually reduce its scale as to mitigate its worst effects.

Our responsibility in the environment is not towards the planet but to ourselves.

 

[Arwon]

You forgot Alien Invasion. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...zDPU3mNYw8ThYJ8Dg&sig2=wlPepxsf1Ok4eIQ1S-0TUQ

No, dearie, I didn't. I just don't think that it would be bad thing.

 

[BasketCase]

Myth 1 : China and India are the "worst polluters"
Myth 2 : China and India are refusing to change course.
Myth 3 : The only way for them to change course is defeat in war.

Wikipedia proves the first two are definitely not myths. The United States is not the world's worst polluter. Hasn't been for a while. The United States is also not the worst polluter per capita. Surprise! Last time I checked, that was Guyana. (the title of worst polluter per capita changes frequently, Qatar and Belize being a couple of other title holders, but the U.S. has not held this dubious title in recent history)

And while my claim #3 is an educated guess, recent events such as China's and India's nose-thumbing at the Kyoto Protocol, prove that they're not going to "change course" any time soon unless a figurative gun is held to their heads. Got any evidence to refute that? Nope. There isn't any.

 

[Arwon]

China's and India's nose-thumbing at the Kyoto Protocol,

Say what now? The Kyoto Protocol ran from 1995 to 2012 and neither of those countries are Annex I countries. Both, however, committed to its successor at Durban. India was actually strongarmed into it on the conference floor.

And then, in an extraordinary scene, a direct negotiation began in the plenary hall between the Indian minister and the European Union’s commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, rapidly flanked by the United States, China, Brazil, Gambia and others, all surrounded by delegates and press taking photographs and trying to catch what was being said. Half an hour later a handshake and a cheer signalled that agreement had been reached.

But it was not a compromise at all. Natarajan had simply caved in, accepting a much stronger form of words – “an agreed outcome with legal force” – and failing to win any new references to equity or the different responsibilities of developed and developing countries. These would have been acceptable to the European Union (they had indeed already been offered); but the United Sates said no, and China and Brazil notably did not come to the Indians’ aid.

And that’s the key. What has happened since Copenhagen is a gradual realisation among the emerging economies – other than India – that the rigid distinction between the responsibilities of developed and developing countries in terms of legal commitments was becoming less and less tenable as their economies and geopolitical power grew. They are not prepared to abandon it just yet; but from 2020 they could see it would have to go.

China was the swing voter. One of the most striking aspects of the Durban talks was how forward-looking the Chinese were – parading their ambitious domestic climate policies in a series of side meetings, suggesting in an early press conference that they might be prepared to take on legally binding commitments, and generally doing everything to ensure that if Durban failed it would not be seen as their fault. They would not, in other words, allow another Copenhagen. Almost certainly they would have preferred an outcome that fell short of a clear commitment to a legally binding regime (and they may still try to claim that the agreed wording does not require that) but in the end they were not prepared to bring the talks down for it. Acceptance of international legal constraints on its emissions pathway is a remarkable shift in China’s stance, not just on climate change talks but on international governance more generally.

 

[BasketCase]

Did India live up to whatever obligated it got "strong-armed" into? I'm going to take a wild guess and say the answer to that is no. Kyoto has been pretty much ignored all around, and as far as I know, just about everybody has missed the targets they agreed to. No surprise, considering Kyoto had no enforcement.

That's the real problem. Enforcement. Until the world community says "clean up or we'll beat the hell out of you" (i.e. a believeable threat of sanctions or war is levelled at them) the worst GHG emitters will go right on emitting.

 

[Synobun]

Right, there's no saving to be done... that is to say, the planet doesn't need saving. But humans do. The planet will survive just fine, perhaps minus several thousand species, with a few degrees rise in temperature. Unfortunately humans, with a few exceptions, will find the planet harder and a poorer place to live on.

Some people mistake "solving global warming" for "reversing the planet to the state before the Industrial Revolution". Renewable energy sources don't suck carbon out of the atmosphere, but they do prevent more carbon from entering the atmosphere. Thus to "solve global warming" is to actually reduce its scale as to mitigate its worst effects.

Our responsibility in the environment is not towards the planet but to ourselves.

Of course. I never once claimed we shouldn't improve our impact upon the planet. The healthier we are as people, the healthier the planet is. I just don't understand why people treat climate change like a problem to be solved.

 

[Arwon]

Did India live up to whatever obligated it got "strong-armed" into? I'm going to take a wild guess and say the answer to that is no. Kyoto has been pretty much ignored all around, and as far as I know, just about everybody has missed the targets they agreed to. No surprise, considering Kyoto had no enforcement.

That's the real problem. Enforcement. Until the world community says "clean up or we'll beat the hell out of you" (i.e. a believeable threat of sanctions or war is levelled at them) the worst GHG emitters will go right on emitting.

It's an ongoing process, but your statement was categorically wrong.

Durban was only a couple of months ago. At the moment we're roughly at the Berlin stage, ie 2 years before Kyoto was settled on. That said, all the major players are committing to emissions reductions and already implementing policies. Hell, China's going to implement a carbon price via a trading scheme in the next 3 years.

And yeah, sport, congratulations on figuring out that international law relies on domestic will and implementation to be effective. Where did you get your international politics PhD?

Of course the major players won't agree to anything that carries serious sanctions, but the point here is to overcome the collective action problem, not to act like cops enforcing a domestic law. It's been done in many other areas of international law and politics despite the lack of enforcement mechanisms inherent to the international sphere.

Who enforces START and SALT, or the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, or the Basel agreements on banking regulation, or the Law of the Sea? The vast majority of implementing states do so, because they have an interest in everyone else doing so, and an internally recognised system of rules is the best way to overcome the collective action problem.

Same thing here. There's a common interest in the stability of our only biosphere, and the policies required to mitigate climate change are known and not that catastrophic. Unfortunately, there is a big first mover disadvantage that leads to difficulty taking collective action. The best way to overcome collective action problems is through frequent negotiations creating an international rules-based system which countries are reasonably comfortable implementing at home. That's what we're inching towards, slowly and with reversals. But hey, China is pretty heavily committing itself.

 

[Dale]

It's an ongoing process, but your statement was categorically wrong.

Durban was only a couple of months ago. At the moment we're roughly at the Berlin stage, ie 2 years before Kyoto was settled on. That said, all the major players are committing to emissions reductions and already implementing policies. Hell, China's going to implement a carbon price via a trading scheme in the next 3 years.

And yeah, sport, congratulations on figuring out that international law relies on domestic will and implementation to be effective. Where did you get your international politics PhD?

Of course the major players won't agree to anything that carries serious sanctions, but the point here is to overcome the collective action problem, not to act like cops enforcing a domestic law. It's been done in many other areas of international law and politics despite the lack of enforcement mechanisms inherent to the international sphere.

Who enforces START and SALT, or the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, or the Basel agreements on banking regulation, or the Law of the Sea? The vast majority of implementing states do so, because they have an interest in everyone else doing so, and an internally recognised system of rules is the best way to overcome the collective action problem.

Same thing here. There's a common interest in the stability of our only biosphere, and the policies required to mitigate climate change are known and not that catastrophic. Unfortunately, there is a big first mover disadvantage that leads to difficulty taking collective action. The best way to overcome collective action problems is through frequent negotiations creating an international rules-based system which countries are reasonably comfortable implementing at home. That's what we're inching towards, slowly and with reversals. But hey, China is pretty heavily committing itself.

I'll believe it when I see it. Personally I think you're in lala land if you believe any universal agreement will appear magically tomorrow, next year, 5 years, whenever. None of the big players are going to deliberately cripple their economies whilst the climate keeps going the way it has for the last 15 years.