Guess it needs to be said: rising seas due to global warming is real, and no damn joke. And, we can do something about it, while creating a greener, cleaner economy.
In fact, one of the best ways to help our families in the United States, and around the world -- particularly the most vulnerable and poor -- is to heal the damage we have done to our home, Earth, and slow sea level rise by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Create more resilient cities, and a greener economy. Not to mention protect some of the most valuable real estate in the United States, including Wall Street.
Below is a 60 second PSA Global Green did last year on sea level rise, entitled I AM. Our goal in enlisting notable individuals to shine a light on the science was to educate Americans, as well as encourage our leaders to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in clean, green technologies (including energy efficiency and solar power).
Just because the PSA includes Modern Family's Ed O'Neil, it's still no damn joke -- the science is real and, sadly, coming to a coastal city near you:
The science is clear and overwhelming:
Here are more facts on sea level rise, and a list of vulnerable cities.
Here's a page that includes a link to animations of what varying levels of sea level rise stands to make many coastal cities look like, including New York.
Here's a good post by blogger David Roberts on sea level rise.
Bottom line: to help our families now and in the future, we have to stop treating our atmosphere like a sewer.
Its time to get back to working hard with cities and states -- and getting leaders in Washington to do the same -- to increasing energy efficiency, solar and other ways to create a greener economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And, we can all take individual action, reclaim our role as citizens, and become a nation of citizen entrepreneurs to each take responsibility for a corner of our world.
Follow Matt Petersen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mathew_petersen
Houston is 50 feet above sea level so they MIGHT have to worry in 1000 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4
Why does the US Navy care?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBBEyJVj5MY
make them face a very real issue which goes far beyond the usual .
Hollywood should be funding these ads on TV during the convention.
The green party can't afford to put ads on TV because they are $80,000 short which if i had ,would gladly give ,but i don't have it.
they have a great message other than the accumulation of wealth!
The rate is 1 cigarette length in 30 years and falling.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
So where does this catastrophic thinking come from ?
Here's a graph showing sea level for the last 2000 years
(warning: do not open if allergic to hockey-stick plots)
http://climatecrock.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/kemp2.jpg
1 cigarette length in 30 years and the rate is falling !
The engine of prosperity is human intelligence and human work.
This would also create a lot of jobs and save a lot of Jobs. Now also invest in all forms of cleaner energy and create more jobs. Win Win
In short, using polarized, value-laden opinions is not the way to 'sell'; climate change. Backing off the values, focusing on the data, and educating the public about how science works, what evidence can and cannot do, and allowing people to see the data on their own terms is the only way around this. Also, and as unfortunate as it may sound, changing the currency of benefit for climate change and conservation to actual dollars may not be a bad idea. Rather than focus on values associated with saving resources, species, the planet, etc. - which may not be valuable to everyone - I believe focusing on cash and water may lead us to a more unified vision of conservation.
In the United States, however, "environmentalism" is viewed negatively by the reactionary affluent, much of the comfortable middle class, and corporations that exploit the environment for profit. In the face of incontrovertible evidence of climate warming, all these segments of society have expressed alarm and outrage over the hardship and sacrifice necessary to ward off the potentially catastrophic changes that are occurring. They seem unconcerned about other non human species or disadvantage people that include the poor, the sick, the homeless, etc. while extolling the supposed benefits of unregulated free enterprise and uncontrolled economic growth.
The inappropriately named "conservation scientists attempting to recast the 'movement' of 'environmentalism' to something less extreme, less value-laden and more beneficial to all people" are naively pretending that environmental degradation can be ignored and affluence can be extended to 7 billion people on the planet by focusing on "cash" for everyone via technological advancements. In essence, they are saying that at the expense of all other species and the environment we share, we need to embrace much more of the very same things that produced the social and ecological catastrophes we are now enduring.
The IPCC said a 1 foot rise by 2090 was likely- they later revised this up- a lot- to a meter. The IPCC was wrong about the disappearance of arctic sea ice in summer- initially saying it could be gone by 2060, then revising that to 2035. Now it could be gone by 2015.
A rise of 1 meter of sea by 2090 seems on the conservative side. It sees a 'linear' rise- which in reality is not going to happen. The events we are now seeing globally from AGW have been exponential. A rise of 2 meters (6 feet) is more then likely- and 3-4 meters is not out of the question.
Really. This is very serious stuff. So much more than just losing some land to rising oceans.
The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg
7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis
Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&...
Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions.
http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html
In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.
Dennis Baker
106-998 Creston Avenue
Penticton BC V2A1P9
cell phone 250-462-3796
Phone / Fax 778-476-2633
The sun has thrown off a strong solar storm that, according to the NOAA, has a 40% probability of a Moderate impact on the earth as far South as Washington DC on September 3rd, There is a 20% probability of a Severe impact in far Northern latitudes.
There is a 12.5% probability of a strong solar storm hitting the Earth between now and 2020. Next year will be a Solae Maximum.
Protecting the grid will soon be possible with new technology. A bold program to prevent a nightmare would be wise. See www.aesopinstitute.org
Decentralizing energy as fast as possible makes excellent sense. 50 million more solar roofs could be an excellent place to start.
Breakthrough technologies to generate decentralized green electricity are in the birth canal. See Moving Beyond Oil and Cheap Green on the Aesop Institute website for a few examples.
Now don't bother me while I bury my head in sand...