Environment
Writing in Foreign Policy, Jamais Cascio writes that the geoengineering capabilities that might help the world fight climate change could also be turned into weapons.
The offensive use of geoengineering could take a variety of forms. Overproductive algae blooms can actually sterilize large stretches of ocean over time, effectively destroying fisheries and local ecosystems. Sulfur dioxide carries health risks when it cycles out of the stratosphere. One proposal would pull cooler water from the deep oceans to the surface in an explicit attempt to shift the trajectories of hurricanes. Some actors might even deploy counter-geoengineering projects to slow or alter the effects of other efforts.
Weaponized geoengineering, Cascio writes, might tempt nations by being both stealthy and fairly inexpensive.
The Washington Post today covered travel destinations threatened by climate change. They include:
- Glacier Bay, Alaska
- the reefs of Belize
- Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
- Scott’s hut, Antarctica
- the low-lying Maldives islands
- the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
- Arctic polar bears
- the glaciers of Glacier National Park, Montana
- the Outer Banks barrier islands, North Carolina
- Chan Chan archaeological site, Peru
The Washington Post yesterday reported on another example of sub-national governmental action on climate change (seen also at the state/province level).
Some 522 mayors representing 65 million Americans have signed a climate change agreement in the face of federal foot-dragging on the issue.
One driver: a third of Americans in an April poll now say that climate change is the world’s most serious environmental problem, double the number from 2006, the Post reports.
City-level action is particularly striking given that climate change is a global issue, beyond the reach of even national governments to manage on their own.
In a further sign that the United States may shift its stance on climate change, a Washington Post poll reveals widespread concern about the phenomenon:
- 70% of Americans want the federal government to do more about global warming, with 49% saying “much more”
- 33% say that global warming is the world’s “single biggest environmental problem,” up from 16% a year ago
- 59% trust the Democrats more than President Bush on the issue
Addressing this post about immigration and the environment, Brishen Hoff comments:
Canada’s environmental integrity is inversely correlated with its population growth. Canada is grossly overpopulated based on what we believe to be a healthy balance between human numbers and biodiversity. Canada’s natural environment is being damaged at an unprecedented rate. Since immigration is main agent of Canada’s population growth, we advocate a complete moratorium on immigration to Canada. We also support an end to: child birthing incentives, natural resource exportation and economic growth.
Curtailing immigration and reducing Canada’s already-low birthrate further will intensify Canada’s future demography-driven problems. However, some of these problems — reduced economic growth, more constrained consumption — Hoff would seemingly view instead as solutions. This is a values-driven question that cannot be resolved rationally, as it depends on the arbitrary weight given to humans or the rest of nature.
Such policies are also at odds with Canadian opinion: most Canadians favor immigration.
An alternative approach might acknowledge that richer countries are better able to protect the environment than poorer ones. Canada is projected to be a great deal wealthier in a few decades: if that were the case, it could dedicate much more money to preserving and restoring the environment while maintaining standards of living.
Military interest in security implications of climate change is growing, the Post reported yesterday.
As part of this interest, the Center for Naval Analyses has commissioned a report on the topic. According to the Post, the report says that:
- “global warming could destabilize vulnerable states in Africa and Asia and drive a flood of migrants to richer countries”
- “climate change ‘can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world,’ in part by causing water shortages and damaging food production”
- “‘Many developing nations do not have the government and social infrastructures in place to cope with the type of stressors that could be brought about by global climate change.’”
The generals responsible for the report also told the Post that “changing climatic conditions will make it harder for weak nation-states to address their citizens’ basic needs.”
In other words, climate change could intensify pressure on states already in danger of failing.
The WP reported today that the leaders of California (an American state) and British Columbia (a Canadian province) are discussing cooperation in alternative energy and climate change initiatives, with BC talking about pursuing ambitious green goals.
This is interesting from a couple of angles:
- It is an example of regions having more in common across borders than within them — evocative of the “Nine Nations of North America” concept.
- It reinforces the concept that the US and now perhaps Canada will be led forward on certain environmental issues by sub-national units. As the premier of BC put it, “If you wait for a whole continent to come along together, sometimes it takes too long.”
On “Charlie Rose” last week, Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute noted that China is projected to be the largest carbon emitter in 3-4 years. This will “lead to a huge change [in] American politics,” he said.
When China is the largest emitter, the Americans are going to say, ‘the Chinese are wrecking our climate.’ All of sudden its going to be nationalism here. ‘How dare they wreck our climate. What are they doing about it?’ And of course that’s how the rest of the world has viewed us all this time. We’re going to see it finally from the others’ perspective.
The National Arbor Day Foundation has produced a series of maps that shows how climate zones are on the move due to warming. About half the US has undergone a full “hardiness zone” change, meaning that plants are dealing with significant change in their environment.
Rapid climate change has the potential to outrun the ability of ecosystems to shift and plants to adapt, potentially causing large-scale disruption and even extinction.
(Via Social Technologies)
Endangered: the Amazon forest
Danger level: medium
Time frame: 50-100 years
Causes: climate change, deforestation
A new study of the effects of climate change suggests that without significant action to reduce the phenomenon, rising temperatures and falling rainfall could destroy the ecosystem completely, transforming the rain forest into savanna and wiping out vast amounts of biodiversity.