John’s Blog/Newsletter: SEA LEVEL RISE NOW

Not all “Green” Issues are Created Equal

Not All Green Issues Belong in the Same Bucket

While it’s tempting to toss all environmental issues into the same “green bucket”, that can add to the confusion. Recycling, saving sea turtles, and combating climate change may all be compelling, but have little in common.

If we are going to find solutions to big challenges, we need to connect efforts that are targeted to the problem at hand, and not be distracted by other issues that are disconnected, even if they are equally pressing. To frame, communicate and conceptualize clearly, I find it helpful to separate environmental issues into these five well defined categories.

1. Animal / Plant / Ecological Issues – the prototype green issues. Even this huge category might be further divided from animals, marine mammals, pets, forests, ecosystems, the entire food chain, diseases, etc.

2. Material and resource conservation, recycling, waste reduction also covers a very wide range from simple waste reduction to the use of recycled paper to more efficient manufacturing, packaging, etc

3. Energy related from method of production to reduction of “greenhouse gases” (GHG) and basic conservation of energy use

4. Climate Change related from direct effects of the warming, to abnormal and extreme weather, increased wildfires, ocean acidification, decline of coral reefs, melting glaciers.

5. Rising Sea Level is obviously a part of the climate change category, but deserves to be segregated I believe. Because the rising sea will move shorelines inland rather permanently it poses a special and unambiguous economic danger and helps to get the attention of many who might dismiss broader environmental issues. (See “Is Rising Sea Level An Environmental Issue?“)

These distinctions can help avoid erroneous connections or correlations. For example, using recycled paper has effectively nothing to do with slowing climate change. The reason is that paper recycling is energy inefficient. The sorting and transporting typically uses more energy compared to planting fast growing tree species close to a paper mill. Since it is the energy use and production of greenhouse gases that is the primary cause of climate change (a/k/a global warming) there is no way that we can recycle our way out of climate change.

As one more example of a misunderstood connection, consider rising sea level and the energy / greenhouse gas issues. It is true that the human caused high levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are responsible for the abnormal warming that is melting the glaciers and ice sheets and raising sea level. But even if the world went to 100% renewable energy immediately, we would still have many feet of higher sea level over the coming century. It is already unstoppable. The problem is that the level of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, etc), the warming ocean and the melting ice are connected, but with a long lag time for adjustment. The reason is that most of the excess heat has been stored in the ocean. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions now, will take a very long time to result in a cooler ocean — similar to the way that an outdoor swimming pool stays warm for days, even after the weather turns cooler.

We must work to deal with the energy issues to slow the warming, the melting, and the rising ocean. If we don’t the accelerating rate of sea level rise will become catastrophic.Thus we need to see the connection of those two issues, but the distinction. Unfortunately many people and local governments ignorantly or wishfully put their focus into solar panels, bike paths, and electric vehicles as if that will stop the oceans from rising.

There are some things across the categories that are strongly connected. For example, the burning of fossil fuels (#3 Energy) has raised the level of carbon dioxide to more than 400 PPM (parts per million), 40% higher than in millions of years. That has directly warmed the planet correlating with the explosion of massive wildfires devastating forests (#1 Ecological). The elevated level of greenhouse gases, is also causing a decrease in the pH or acidity of the ocean (#4 a climate change effect) that is already having a huge impact on shellfish such as oysters (#1, an ecological / biological issue.) Those cross category connections are valid.

There are many different types of environmental problems, requiring different types of solutions. To solve our most challenging problems, we need to have clarity and apply the right solutions for the problem.

By John Englander April 2, 2017 Sea Level Rise

5 Comments

Nicholas Jenkin

- 8 years ago Reply

I like your approach. As someone whose greatest impact on green issues is a consumer, I use information to make choices that I feel will promote businesses who consider green issues. I feel it is important to continue doing this, simply due to improving the quality of one’s surroundings and that of other people across the globe. I fully subscribe to your point of view on sea level rise and it is refreshing to read something that states so simply that we all need to know more about what is relevant to all of us. I can’t help wondering why you are not talking methane in the same breath as greenhouse gas emissions, however. No one really talks about methane even though it has been three years since the announcement of it’s short term impact being greater than carbon dioxide on global warming. It is part of the reason I gave up eating animal products in favour of a plant-based diet and remains so, although I do feel so much healthier too, and do not contract colds and flu anymore.

John

- 8 years ago Reply

Glad you find this helpful. If you search for ‘methane’ under my Blog tab you will find several posts, e.g.
BTW, while methane is under-recognized in terms of potential warming, it has been known for much longer than three years. As you will see in that post cited above, I clearly spell out it’s incredible problems. The reason we focus more on carbon dioxide is that we have more control over CO2, since the problem comes from our use of fossil fuels. But again, no disagreement about the problem. A big methane release and a sudden change in certain parts of the Antarctic ice sheet are the two catastrophes that concern me the most.

Nicholas Jenkin

- 8 years ago Reply

Thank you. I will perform a search to that effect. It is true that I only saw the annoucement about methane three years ago and I can fully accept this would not have been the first time people more connected, like yourself, would have been aware of it. I think as a civilization we do have a means of some control over methane, however, if we accept that the future of food cannot be factory farming of animals, and in that an acceptance that we need to eat more plants. It seems like a no brainer to me: reduce the instances of methane from cattle and plant more fruit and veg which would soak up more carbon, perhaps. In any case, intensive farm animal rearing is very resource intensive and I am sure you would agree that the carbon footprint would be significantly addressed by a reduction in this. I was quite concerned reading an article recently about warming soil giving off its carbon at a greater rate as the century progresses and it mirrored something I read a few years ago about sea-locked methane in deep sea rocks doing the same as the oceans warm. It is really grim, all round.

Richard Bailey

- 8 years ago Reply

I am very much in agreement that we need to focus on the most challenging problems,and apply the right solutions. To do otherwise will prolong the problems while they become ever more serious, and costly. We also need to focus on solutions that work across environmental, political and economic boundaries, and that have a massive enough impact to really make a difference. Such a solution is an annually rising fee on fossil fuel emissions, levied only at the mine, well or port of entry, and returned to citizens via a monthly dividend. This solution uses market forces and, like compound interest, exerts itself everyday in millions of economic choices that promote less use of fossil fuel, more sustainable and efficient energy, an expanded economy (more jobs) that is more resilient to climate change. The net result can be a quicker reduction of atmospheric carbon levels compared to current regulations. A carbon fee is the next best thing to a silver bullet, and the dividend can help all people.

John

- 8 years ago Reply

Richard — We agree on the “solution” to the rising carbon emissions, causing the overall warming temperature, that melts the ice etc. As we have discussed however, at this point that will not stop rising sea level over the coming century and beyond due to the excess heat energy already stored in the ocean. Thus (as we have discussed) we need to tackle both problems simultaneously, i.e. slowing the warming and adapting to the inevitable rising sea. So while I agree with your “solution” I suggest you take care to imply that it is “the” solution, which implies that is where we need to put 100% of our focus and efforts. That need to see the diverse and largely distinct aspects of these problems was the intent of this post. I thought that was clear, but appreciate this opportunity to clarify that.