Beach Report: - The Debate Begins

   

WHAT HAPPENED IN VENTNOR  Fall 2002?

    The debate this summer in Margate will be about whether to join or not to join the AISPP. Or will there be any debate at all? Will summer 2013 follow the pattern that late summer and fall  2002 did in Ventnor? I hope not. Why? Because , what happened in Ventnor that year was a vote, but there was very little in the way of any kind of actual  debate. Back then Mayor Kreischer and his Commission all came down 100% for joining and then proceeded to bully and threaten the other side in this extremely contentious and one-sided election. That might not have happened, had DUNE listened to me and not to Paula Johnson back then. I had warned the principle organizers and founders of DUNE Mark Miller and Marvin Levin that they faced a election that year and they ignored me. I knew it as early as Jan. 2002. They waited to get organized till Sept. and then refused to put together a local citizens committee, as I had advised. Paula lived in Margate, as did I and Mark and Marvin were summer residents not registered local voters. Not one of us was a resident voter of Ventnor, a critical issue that was used against us during that whole election. That decision by itself IMO doomed any hope of winning in Ventnor, as dim as  they were  anyway. Mayor Kreischer et al. were at that time at the top of their game in Ventnor and ruled the town with an iron-fist. Anyone in Ventnor that stood up to TIMMAY as he was known got hammered by him and his right hand man City Solicitor Scott Abbott ( now coincidentally Margate's City Solicitor.)  The rest is history. DUNE lost 65% to 35% to nobody's surprise. DUNE was totally an amateur act , not put together to run political campaigns. Paula had wanted to believe that Kreischer was bluffing and that no election was ever going to be held. What did she know, she was from NYC. To her credit though she was good at organizing petition drives and we do owe her the law that now sits on the books in Margate. 
   The truth is we were never more than one really bad storm away from an election on this issue in Margate. We lucked out for the past 11 yrs., at least  until  Sandy .  

DEBATE  OR  DIVIDE ?

Hopefully, Margate's present leadership will decide that on an issue of such importance it behooves them to allow the public to have all the facts and information surrounding this issue. Holding public meetings that ONLY allow one sided opinions and facts to be aired, as was done in Ventnor in 2002 is not a real debate. So, I would warn the Pro Dune-side here that they must understand that  having public meetings that give a starring role to the ARMY CORP. and the NJDEP are merely pep rallies for their Pro-dune team, not public meetings that allow for both sides to air information  and make their respective cases.  I would respectfully suggest that this whole issue be actually debated in public and that each side present it's case in such a format. I would also suggest a few large public  meetings where the Commission allows the public to field it questions about the Project, at those meetings both the Army and the NJDEP could be asked to attend, but hopefully not sit on the stage.  They could be called  as speakers when questions about the Project are asked.  Allowing them to sit on the stage with their charts and power pts. is just another advertisement for the Pro-dune side in this. This same is true of having someone like Pro-dune Stockton Prof. Stewart Farrell , who makes a tidy profit off doing contract work for the Army and the NJDEP and the various NJ Coastal communities. He's anything but neutral on this issue.            Hopefully, this whole issue will not turn into another ugly & divisive  community divider, as  was the case in Ventnor in 2002.  

400.03 ppm CO2 - May 9th 2013

   A milestone nobody should be happy about. The last time the Earth had as much CO 2 in it's atmosphere was somewhere back around 2-4 mil. yrs. ago. @ that time the Ocean was 130 ft. higher than it is today and there was little to no ice at either of Earth's poles. Human's were just beginning to hunt with weapons and use fire. The Greeks tell us that when the Titan Prometheus gave man fire he was punished for this sacrilege, because the God's told him that man would destroy himself  with this gift. He was chained to a rock and the vultures tore him to pieces. It appears there might just have been some truth to that ancient myth after all. The uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels could indeed be our undoing in the short run. We shall see. At a min. mankind will now be put to the test of fire. It appears the Poet Robert Frost's famous poem about how the world might end "Fire and Ice" might finally have it's answer. Fire it will be.

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice. 

Robert Frost

Related articles

• Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark

Beach Report : The Pros / Cons of the AISPP

   

The Pros & Cons of the AISPP

    
   This coming fall Margate's voters will get to decide whether or not to join the Absecon Island Shore Protection Project. They can thank a local anti-Project group ( DUNE) that existed up till 11 yrs. ago for providing them with the ordinance that is in effect today providing them such a vote.  They can also thank the Margate  Commission that existed back in 2001 for adopting the ordinance and the present Commission for using it.  The issue at hand is not a simple or straight forward one. Joining or not joining requires trade offs  and risks on both sides. I'd like my blog to act as a place where both sides can come and read about and comment and debate on those various risks and trade offs. I would also like it to be a place where the public gets the truth and not a pile of disinformation and propaganda from either side.

LYING LIARS

   A example of just such nonsense was evident the other day in a letter to the editor in the AC Press by a local Margate gadfly Mr. S and a statement in the Downbeach Current by an ex. Margate Mayor VR. The gadfly wants all of us to believe that global warming mediated sea rise is a hoax and isn't happening and the ex. Mayor is spewing the falsehood that if we join the Project and no money is allocated for it by the US Congress, the local taxpayers will end up on the hook for it. I'll take a closer look at each of these person's assertions below.

THE TRUTH & THEN THERE IS THE  FOX  ( FAUX) NEWS VERSION 

 
   Let's go directly to the local gadfly's assertions first. "Taube bases the need for this project on pseudoscience. If only she had done a modicum of research before she pontificated, "We can't question the fact that the sea level is rising." Bona fide scientists aren't so easily swayed. In fact, German meteorologists say the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years. Russian scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts that we are heading for a mini ice age."  Unfortunately what we have here it appears is a person who gets most of his information from various hard right wing anti-news outlets like Fox, Rush Limbaugh & others. Most of these so called news outlets are little more than paid advertisements for whatever largely  anti-science nonsense their being paid to spew that week by some Corp. sponsor like the Oil, Coal and Nat. Gas Barons and related Industries, in this particular case.  AGW  ( Anthropomorphic Global Warming)  is an established theory supported by 98% of the World's scientific community. Like all science it is subject to peer review and constant  experimentation and testing and it's various predictions are of course also subject to revision from time to time. That said, the underlying theory of AGW is the well known scientifically proven FACT of the "greenhouse effect." No legitimate scientist out here denies that the "greenhouse effect" is an established  scientific fact.  There are however, differing projections and models as regards the various effects and changes we can expect as we go forward into an increasingly warming global environment.  Sea rise is one of these areas where there are indeed differences of opinion, however the fact that the Oceans are rising at an increasing rate is also well established by thousands of studies and ongoing satellite and ocean based tidal gauges that in some instances have existed for over a hundred yrs. In fact, the very first tide gauge on Earth is right here in AC on the Steel Pier. It was installed when the very first Steel Pier was built and is well over a hundred yrs. old. It has accurately measured the rising and falling sea level along the Jersey coast and I can assure all of you the sea is indeed rising here and the pace is in fact picking up dramatically. Why? Find and watch the movie "Chasing Ice" or read the various books ( like John Englander's excellent book "High Tide on Main Street," out right now that discuss all the various reasons why the Ocean is rising and will be for a very very long time to come. So, you can safely ignore the local Gadfly Mr. S ranting about AGW, since it appears his source is just part of the ongoing right wing lunacy this particular person and his ilk seems to try and pass off as reality these days. There are plenty of other "good" reasons to not want to join the AISPP, this isn't one of them. Back up and give it another try Mr. S because your way off base on this one.

The Ex. Mayor and the Truth

   Now as for  ex. Margate Mayor VR's comments in a recent  DB Current article http://shorenewstoday.com/snt/pdf/db.pdf this past Thurs., where he makes the false assertion that if Margate's voters decide to join the AISPP and no money is allocated by Congress for a particular Project fill the Army Corp. will then bill the taxpayers in Margate directly and go ahead and do the fill anyway.  He's wrong,  in fact such a statement is  utter
 nonsense. The truth is this. If no money is allocated for a scheduled fill it simply doesn't go forward, it's then delayed until funding from Congress or the State of NJ is made available. That said, it is possible that at some time in the future Congress might indeed change the present funding formula, right now it's a 65 /25/10 % split, with the local communities paying as much as 10% of the total costs of any particular project fill / build.  What the voters need to know is this formula is NOT etched in stone or in the 50 yr. contract we'd probably have to sign to join. So, we could join and in a few yrs. Congress could say no more $$ for these Projects, sorry and that's probably where this would all end. From that pt. on we'd have to plead our case for more sand to the State of NJ. So the funding issue is indeed a major one, but not as our ex. mayor is trying to portray it.  Another part of the funding issue that the voters must understand is the cost of these Projects is not likely to go down. The reasons are that sand is likely to get more expensive and scarce going forward, so maintaining the Project template into the future should be a legitimate topic of discussion and debate. That said, telling the public a blatant lie to scare them is not IMO a very good way to be opposed to the Project. Oh and one other thing , the Mayor also knows that  beach replenishment and the dune are not inseparable parts of the whole thing. If Margate wants dunes and no beach replenishment then it has to build it's own dunes and maintain them, at it's own expense ( as it's done in the past.)  As for beach replenishment if they ( The Army and the NJDEP) don't decide to go ahead and build a groin in south Ventnor , which they've threatened to do on various occasions, then we'll still get project sand in the southerly drift. So, this is an option, but it's not one being discussed or voted on. 

Related articles

• In defense of Jersey Shore dune opponents: Opinion

SCIENCE FRI. - THE DEVELOPING CARBON BUBBLE

Carbon bubble will plunge the world into another financial crisis – report

Trillions of dollars at risk as stock markets inflate value of fossil fuels that may have to remain buried forever, experts warn

• 
  

• Damian Carrington
• The Guardian, 
• 
  

Global stock markets are betting on countries failing to adhere to legally binding carbon emission targets. Photograph: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

The world could be heading for a major economic crisis as stock markets inflate an investment bubble in fossil fuels to the tune of trillions of dollars, according to leading economists.

"The financial crisis has shown what happens when risks accumulate unnoticed," said Lord (Nicholas) Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics. He said the risk was "very big indeed" and that almost all investors and regulators were failing to address it.

The so-called "carbon bubble" is the result of an over-valuation of oil,coal and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies. According to a report published on Friday, at least two-thirds of these reserves will have to remain underground if the world is to meet existing internationally agreed targets to avoid the threshold for "dangerous" climate change. If the agreements hold, these reserves will be in effect unburnable and so worthless – leading to massive market losses. But the stock markets are betting on countries' inaction on climate change.

The stark report is by Stern and the thinktank Carbon Tracker. Their warning is supported by organisations including HSBC, Citi, Standard and Poor's and the International Energy Agency. The Bank of England has also recognised that a collapse in the value of oil, gas and coal assets as nations tackle global warming is a potential systemic risk to the economy, with London being particularly at risk owing to its huge listings of coal.

Stern said that far from reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn (£441bn) in 2012 to find and exploit even more new resources, a sum equivalent to 1% of global GDP, which could end up as "stranded" or valueless assets. Stern's landmark 2006 reporton the economic impact of climate change – commissioned by the then chancellor, Gordon Brown – concluded that spending 1% of GDP would pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy.

The world's governments have agreed to restrict the global temperature rise to 2C, beyond which the impacts become severe and unpredictable. But Stern said the investors clearly did not believe action to curb climate change was going to be taken. "They can't believe that and also believe that the markets are sensibly valued now."

"They only believe environmental regulation when they see it," said James Leaton, from Carbon Tracker and a former PwC consultant. He said short-termism in financial markets was the other major reason for the carbon bubble. "Analysts say you should ride the train until just before it goes off the cliff. Each thinks they are smart enough to get off in time, but not everyone can get out of the door at the same time. That is why you get bubbles and crashes."

Paul Spedding, an oil and gas analyst at HSBC, said: "The scale of 'listed' unburnable carbon revealed in this report is astonishing. This report makes it clear that 'business as usual' is not a viable option for the fossil fuel industry in the long term. [The market] is assuming it will get early warning, but my worry is that things often happen suddenly in the oil and gas sector."

HSBC warned that 40-60% of the market capitalisation of oil and gas companies was at risk from the carbon bubble, with the top 200 fossil fuel companies alone having a current value of $4tn, along with $1.5tn debt.

Lord McFall, who chaired the Commons Treasury select committee for a decade, said: "Despite its devastating scale, the banking crisis was at its heart an avoidable crisis: the threat of significant carbon write down has the unmistakable characteristics of the same endemic problems."

The report calculates that the world's currently indicated fossil fuel reserves equate to 2,860bn tonnes of carbon dioxide, but that just 31% could be burned for an 80% chance of keeping below a 2C temperature rise. For a 50% chance of 2C or less, just 38% could be burned.

Carbon capture and storage technology, which buries emissions underground, can play a role in the future, but even an optimistic scenario which sees 3,800 commercial projects worldwide would allow only an extra 4% of fossil fuel reserves to be burned. There are currently no commercial projects up and running. The normally conservative International Energy Agency has also concluded that a major part of fossil fuel reserves is unburnable.

Citi bank warned investors in Australia's vast coal industry that little could be done to avoid the future loss of value in the face of action on climate change. "If the unburnable carbon scenario does occur, it is difficult to see how the value of fossil fuel reserves can be maintained, so we see few options for risk mitigation."

Ratings agencies have expressed concerns, with Standard and Poor's concluding that the risk could lead to the downgrading of the credit ratings of oil companies within a few years.

Steven Oman, senior vice-president at Moody's, said: "It behoves us as investors and as a society to know the true cost of something so that intelligent and constructive policy and investment decisions can be made. Too often the true costs are treated as unquantifiable or even ignored."

Jens Peers, who manages €4bn (£3bn) for Mirova, part of €300bn asset managers Natixis, said: "It is shocking to see the report's numbers, as they are worse than people realise. The risk is massive, but a lot of asset managers think they have a lot of time. I think they are wrong." He said a key moment will come in 2015, the date when the world's governments have pledged to strike a global deal to limit carbon emissions. But he said that fund managers need to move now. If they wait till 2015, "it will be too late for them to take action."

Pension funds are also concerned. "Every pension fund manager needs to ask themselves have we incorporated climate change and carbon risk into our investment strategy? If the answer is no, they need to start to now," said Howard Pearce, head of pension fund management at the Environment Agency, which holds £2bn in assets.

Stern and Leaton both point to China as evidence that carbon cuts are likely to be delivered. China's leaders have said its coal use will peak in the next five years, said Leaton, but this has not been priced in. "I don't know why the market does not believe China," he said. "When it says it is going to do something, it usually does." He said the US and Australia were banking on selling coal to China but that this "doesn't add up".

Jeremy Grantham, a billionaire fund manager who oversees $106bn of assets, said his company was on the verge of pulling out of all coal and unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil from tar sands. "The probability of them running into trouble is too high for me to take that risk as an investor." He said: "If we mean to burn all the coal and any appreciable percentage of the tar sands, or other unconventional oil and gas then we're cooked. [There are] terrible consequences that we will lay at the door of our grandchildren."

Related articles

• Forget the Housing Bubble - the Next Crisis May Be the Carbon Bubble

Margate to Vote on joining the AISPP in Nov.

   

   So, after 13 yrs. the voters will now have their say on whether to  join the AISPP or not.http://www.shorenewstoday.com/snt/news/index.php/downbeach-/longport-margate-ventnor-general-news/38338-margate-voters-to-have-their-say-on-shore-protection.html  In 2001  the local anti -project group  DUNE (that I was part of)  presented a petition  in Margate that over 700 people signed at that time.  The Commission honored our effort and put our proposed ordinance on the books. That ordinance simply  states that Margate voters must be asked to approve or disapprove  of any  Commission  vote to join or  finance any Dune project through public debt ( a bond) or through a direct tax.  That ultimately the approval of  such a project should be left to the voters and citizens of Margate. I agreed with this idea then and I agree with it now.

@ the Beach will be NEUTRAL 

  Now the tricky part. Getting the right info out to both sides. As I have indicated in my last blog on this my stance at this juncture is one of studied neutrality. I believe a good case can be made for either side. I would like to point out though that trying to attack one side because they believe in AGW ( Global warming) is actually rather ignorant. AGW is a fact, as is sea rise.  Is it of itself a reason to join or not to join, Maybe. That said, it is a factor that  must be figured into this debate. Those that want to deny it have 97% of the scientific community to contend with on this issue , not just Al Gore. However, it's NOT the only issue here  one should be looking at. In the future I will do a blog giving what I think are the important pts. on each side of the issue.

MARGATE'S Commission did the right thing

In the mean time I'd like to thank the Margate Commission for doing the right thing here. We, DUNE ultimately wanted the people to decide this issue if necessary. The Commissioners are doing the right thing here by respecting our legacy and the people's voice in that petition, as well as the preceding three Commission's decisions.   It's my opinion, that Mayor Russo in Longport and Mayor Whalen in AC both made unilateral decisions about the very character of their communities that they alone should have never made. Neither were elected to make such a change without the people's ok. In Ventnor it was decided in a fair election, as nasty as it was. In Margate, lets hope it can stay civil this time. I certainly will do my best to not allow it to get ugly and personal at my blog. So debate away folks , but please NO personal attacks. You will be denied access if you get personal. This is a policy decision, an important one , so treat it as such. Make your case  without attacking the character of those that disagree with you. Thank You.

OBAMA IN PLUNDERLAND

MY TAKE:

    More of what Obama is really  about, which is serving his Corp. masters. The Oligarchs never had anything to worry about when they picked this guy as their back up choice for President.  They might prefer having a Goper in the WH , but Obama has shown that a Corp. Dem. is almost just as good on 99% of the issues they really care about. Nobody gets to the WH these days unless he's been thoroughly vetted by BIG $$ and is totally owned by the same. Too much is at stake to allow anyone who really represents "the people" near the power. We live in an Empire now, the days of the Republic are behind us, most people don't realize that even in Imperial Rome people still voted , for all the good it did them. The Senate of Rome was never disbanded it sat right to the end in the 5th century, of course by then it was largely just ceremonial. ( you notice that money is at the center of that word.) In reality that's all DC is about anymore the CEREMONIAL ( the celebration of those with cash.) Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. 

Published on Thursday, May 9, 2013 by Common Dreams

Obama in Plunderland: Down the Corporate Rabbit Hole

by Norman Solomon

The president’s new choices for Commerce secretary and FCC chair underscore how far down the rabbit hole his populist conceits have tumbled. Yet the Obama rhetoric about standing up for working people against “special interests” is as profuse as ever. Would you care for a spot of Kool-Aid at the Mad Hatter’s tea party?Penny Pritzker, billionaire heiress to Hyatt Hotels, was nominated by President Obama for Commerce secretary in a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden Thursday morning. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

Of course the Republican economic program is worse, and President Romney’s policies would have been even more corporate-driven. That doesn't in the slightest make acceptable what Obama is doing. His latest high-level appointments -- boosting corporate power and shafting the public -- are despicable.

To nominate Penny Pritzker for secretary of Commerce is to throw in the towel for any pretense of integrity that could pass a laugh test. Pritzker is “a longtime political supporter and heavyweight fundraiser,” the Chicago Tribune reported with notable understatement last week, adding: “She is on the board of Hyatt Hotels Corp., which was founded by her family and has had rocky relations with labor unions, and she could face questions about the failure of a bank partly owned by her family. With a personal fortune estimated at $1.85 billion, Pritzker is listed by Forbes magazine among the 300 wealthiest Americans.”

A more blunt assessment came from journalist Dennis Bernstein: “Her pioneering sub-prime operations, out of Superior Bank in Chicago, specifically targeted poor and working class people of color across the country. She ended up crashing Superior for a billion-dollar cost to taxpayers, and creating a personal tragedy for the 1,400 people who lost their savings when the bank failed.” Pritzker, whose family controls Hyatt Regency Hotels, has a vile anti-union record.

Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker? What’s next? Labor Secretary Donald Trump? SEC Chairman Bernie Madoff?

The choice of Penny Pritzker to run the Commerce Department is a matched set with the simultaneous pick of Tom Wheeler -- another mega-fundraiser for candidate Obama -- to chair the Federal Communications Commission.

With crucial decisions on the near horizon at the FCC, the president’s nomination of Wheeler has dire implications for the future of the Internet, digital communications and democracy. For analysis, my colleagues at the Institute for Public Accuracy turned to the progressive former FCC commissioner Nicholas Johnson, who called the choice “bizarre.”

“There is no single independent regulatory commission that comes close to the impact of the FCC on every American’s life,” Johnson said. “That’s why Congress, in creating it, characterized its mission as serving ‘the public interest’ -- an expression used throughout the Act.”

But with countless billions of dollars at stake, the corporate fix was in. As Johnson pointed out, “Wheeler’s background is as a trade association representative for companies appearing before the Commission, a lobbyist in Congress for other FCC customers, and a venture capitalist investing in and profiting from others whose requests he’ll have to pass on. He has no record, of which I am aware, of challenging corporate abuse of power on behalf of consumers and the poor.”

But wait. There’s more. “Nor does Wheeler’s membership on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board bode well for those who believe Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights should be getting at least as much attention as the government’s perceived need to engage in even more secret snooping.”

To urge senators to reject the nominations of Pritzker and Wheeler, click here.

Meanwhile, at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Obama’s recent appointment of Wall Street insider Mary Jo White as SEC chair is playing out in predictable fashion. Days ago, in an editorial, the New York Times faulted her role in an SEC decision on regulating the huge derivatives market: “Last week, in her first commission vote, Ms. White led the commissioners in approving a proposal that, if finalized, could leave investors and taxpayers exposed to the ravages of reckless bank trading.”

We need to ask ourselves how the forces of corporate capitalism have gained so much power over government, to the extreme detriment of people who aren’t rich. Humpty Dumpty’s brief dialectical exchange with Alice is on point:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," Alice replied, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," Humpty Dumpty responded, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Denunciations and protests against the dominant power structure are essential. And insufficient. For the body politic and the potential of democracy, accommodating to the Democratic Party leadership is a deathly prescription. So is failure to fight for electoral power by challenging that leadership, fielding genuinely progressive candidates and organizing to win.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” and "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State".

DRAGGING THEIR FEET AS THE WORLD BURNS

MY TAKE:

The article below sums up for us why so little progress is being made toward stopping the accelerating rate of global warming , even though the science and even the methods to mitigate it are all now well established.

Published on Tuesday, May 7, 2013 by Inter Press Service

As World Burns... Rich Countries Drag Feet at Climate Talks

by Stephen Leahy

(Photo: Jan Golinksi/UNFCCC)UXBRIDGE, Canada - Another week of international climate negotiations ended in Bonn, Germany last Friday, but there was little mid-level bureaucrats could do when world leaders remain in thrall to the fossil fuel industry, say environmentalists.

“The main barrier to confronting the climate crisis isn’t lack of knowledge about the problem, nor is it the lack of cost-effective solutions,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"World leaders are acting like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." -- Union of Concerned Scientists' Alden Meyer

“It’s the lack of political will by most world leaders to confront the special interests that have worked long and hard to block the path to a sustainable low-carbon future. Until this changes, we’re not going to see the action we need,” said Meyer, who has attended virtually every climate negotiation over the past 19 years.

Canada offers a perfect example. Its much-promoted strategy for future prosperity is based on pumping two billion of tonnes of climate-heating CO2 into the atmosphere. Tens of billions of dollars are being invested in the Alberta tar sands to increase production from 1.6 million barrels a day to four to five million a day by 2020.

That translates into one billion tonnes of CO2 a year from tar sands extraction and burning the resulting fuels.

Canada is also one of the world’s largest natural gas producers, with aggressive expansion plans estimated to result in adding 0.5 billion tonnes of CO2 annually by 2020 for production and burning.

Top this off with 80 to 100 million tonnes of CO2 from coal and Canada’s ‘normal’ domestic emissions of half a billion tonnes and Canada’s future prosperity will be based on profiting from dumping two billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The science is clear that to have a good chance of keeping global temperature increases below two degrees C requires global emissions to decline at least six to 10 billion tonnes below 2011 levels by 2020. And this decline must continue to push emissions lower every year thereafter. Instead emissions are increasing each year.

At least 78 percent of Canada’s proven oil, bitumen, gas and coal reserves, and 89 percent of proven-plus-probable reserves would need to remain underground as part of Canada’s effort to stay below two degrees C, according to a recent study by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

“Business-as-usual for the fossil fuel industry is incompatible with the need to keep the global temperature increase to two degrees C or less,” said CCPA senior economist Marc Lee.

“We are in need of a ‘managed retreat’ from fossil fuel investments,” said Lee.

However, under the Stephen Harper government Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto climate treaty, and reduced its support for energy efficiency and clean energy while continuing to provide more than one billion dollars in annual subsidies or tax incentives for fossil fuel companies.

Despite propaganda that rich countries like Canada take the dangers of climate change seriously, it is absolutely clear they do not. “World leaders are acting like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” Meyer said in a statement.

Developed countries must look at the gap between where the science says their targets should be in 2020, which is 50 percent below 1990 levels, and their current commitments are of just 13 percent, said Augustine Njamnshi of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA).

Despite all this the Bonn meeting ended with a positive dynamic, according to many participants. The Association of Small Island States launched a plan designed to have countries commit to deeper cuts in carbon emissions in the next few years. And there was much discussion around the issue of equity or fairness in terms of emissions reductions for a new climate treaty to be signed in 2015.

However, there were no commitments or specifics, said Njamnshi in a statement.

These discussions will continue at a two-week meeting in June also in Bonn. In November, leaders are slated to attend the annual U.N. climate conference known as COP 19 in Warsaw. There they need to agree on action to shrink the gap between pledges and what science says is needed, said Jan Kowalzig of Oxfam Germany.

“We’re on track to four degrees of warming which will be disastrous for most countries,” Kowalzig told IPS.

In Bonn, there was good discussion on how to reduce the gap, including the Association of Small Island States’ plan to have governments make specific commitments on renewable energy and energy efficiency at COP 19, he said.

The Climate Action Network, a coalition of over 90 civil society organizations including Oxfam, “wholeheartedly support this initiative”, he said.

An action plan for phasing out fossil subsidies also needs to be agreed on at COP 19. In addition, developed countries like Canada, the U.S. and Australia must come prepared to increase “their pathetically low emissions reduction targets”, Kowalzig said.

© 2013 IPS North America

• E-mail
• Print
• Share

  
  

BEACH REPORT - NEUTRAL AFTER ALL THESE YEARS

English: The Great Dune of Pyla, France, the tallest sand dune in Europe, being 107 m high at its crest. Français: La dune du Pyla, vue d'une partie de la crête côté terre en direction du nord-est. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

   The Final Battle?

   It seems the final act of the 13 yr. Absecon Island Dune battle is finally drawing near. You can read all about it in todays AC Press http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/atlantic/margate-may-be-forced-to-put-dune-project-to-referendum/article_4fd1134c-aeae-5a95-8b1b-2d2d25682514.html   By the way I even have the final word in that article so take a moment and check it out.

 Why am I  Neutral after all these Yrs. of Strident opposition?

   I think I can sum up my neutral position with two  words.  SEA RISE.  You might be wondering why I haven't gone over totally to the Dune advocate side then.  That would be a fair question at this juncture, especially considering my vigorous opposition to Beach replenishment in general these last 13 years.

Ok, so here's my position today and why it's changed. 

Global Sea Rise & Meltwater Pulse 1A & 1B

   Over the course of the last couple of years I've spent a lot of time studying the increasingly alarming science, news and related events of Global warming and climate change. In among all that information was a lot of  data that suggested that sea rise was increasing rapidly. Up until recently however, although I knew this, I really didn't understand it within any historical framework, I do now and frankly folks, I'm alarmed. Very recently my local chapter of the Int'l Envirnomental group SJ350.org had Mr. John Englander come and do a lecture and a power pt. demonstration for us at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation out in Galloway TWP. behind Stockton College. Mr. Englander has written a wonderful small book on Global Sea rise called "High Tide on Mainstreet" and I  implore any of you that are interested in knowing more about Global warming and Sea rise to get it. You can buy it I believe @ Amazon.com. In that book, John who is a lifelong Oceanographer and is well known in the world of Oceanography and related studies, outlines for us the history of sea rise since the end of the last Ice age and it's quite an eye opener indeed. I won't be giving anything away to mention one startling fact here, over the course of the last 18 thousand yrs. since the end of the last great Ice age the Oceans of Earth have risen over 400 ft.! That is amazing in of itself, but here's the really startling facts of that rise in a few very short time frames of under 300 yrs. & 500 yrs. twice in that long rise the Oceans rose in two enormous pulses, called Melt Water pulse 1A and 1B. 1A happened about 14K yrs. ago and went on for about 200  yrs. In that short span of time the Oceans rose 65 ft! In the second great Meltwater pulse around 10K years ago it rose again about 50 ft. in less than 500 yrs.! Why? It's thought that both of these events coincided with the collapse of large sections of the great glacial ice caps that stretched across North America and EurAsia and the massive Ice cap that covered Antarctica and the surround sea basins like the Ross sea. As parts of these Ice caps melted and collapsed they sent huge amounts of fresh water cascading seaward in a relatively short amount of time geologically speaking. The seas rose at the rate of 3.25 ft. a decade in Melt water 1A and about 1.5 ft. a decade in Meltwater 1B. Doesn't sound like a lot right?  Guess again. I want you to focus on the second figure and then you'll get an idea of why I'm alarmed. 1.5 ft. a decade is approx. 30 mm and today as I write this the sea rise rate is 3 mm a yr. X 10 yrs = 30 mm! That's right, as of today we are in Melt Water Pulse 2A folks and the rate of sea rise is still rising! 

  New Jerseyization Indeed!

   Again, some historical perspective is needed to frame just how fast and just how high things are going to go in the 21st century, yes in our kids lifetimes. Sea rise started again in the early 20th century after almost little to no rise for the previous 6 thousand yrs.! Still  it only rose that whole century by about 1.5 ft to  2 feet worldwide with most of that happening in the last 30 yrs. of the century as the rate started to increase rapidly. Nevertheless, if one starts to look at what happened along just the NJ coast from say 1910 on you can already start to see it's effects. How? The 1st beach replenishment project was in Coney Island in the early 20's and by decades end Atlantic City was also getting it's first beach fill along with increasing amounts of large groins, jetties , seawalls and bulkheading. Cape May lost it's large 19th century beaches and had to build a huge sea wall to protect it's stately Victorian houses by the 1940's. The hard reinforcing of almost all of the NJ coast over the next 80's yrs. was so dramatic that coastal geologists even coined a phrase they used globally to describe this kind of effort,  to as they called it back them combat coastal erosion, it was called New Jerseyization.  In reality, what we were already seeing in retrospect was the first battles being waged against a rising Ocean caused by the oceans starting to expand as they absorbed the first pulses of heat from Global warming. Some scientists now believe one of the warmings first effects was ending the so called "little Ice age" in Europe and North America by the 1850's. Remember, Industrialization had started at that pt. 100 yrs. earlier and with it the massive burning of coal and eventually oil by the 20th century. All of this greatly accelerated as we neared the 21st century and is still accelerating even today! What nobody even suspected till lately was how sensitive the whole climate system was to the level of GHGs in it. 

180 ppm to 280 ppm of C02  for 600K yrs!

  For 600K yrs. the average range of CO2 in the atmosphere is believed to have been roughly only 100 ppm from the depth of an Ice age to the peak of an Inter-glacial warming period like today. In a few short pulses it might have reached 300 ppm in a few Interglacials,  but that is even still not a certainty.  Today as I write this the amount of CO2 is passing the 400 ppm mark!  Understand, Sea rise is directly correlated to and lags  behind the amount of  C02 and the average temp. rises associated with it. Not to scare all of you, but here's a reality we all need to start to grasp. The last time C02 on Earth was above 400 ppm was 5 mil. yrs. ago in the Pliocene epic and @ that time the Ocean was 100 to 130 ft. higher than today! Get the picture? 

DUNES then and Now

 So,  as the sea rises in this century we are going to witness and then our kids and grandkids are going to witness the next great round of defensive coastal engineering  in a increasingly desperate attempt to try and adapt to the oncoming and accelerating sea rise as the warming ramps up.  What will it look like? The 1st part started @ the end of the 20th century, as the Feds. started to massively replenish beaches and  build artificial dunes / levees all along the coasts, not just in NJ. These programs, now over 500 of them I'm told are absorbing billions of tax dollars in essentially a rear guard action against a rising Ocean that is now accelerating exponentially.  

RAISE EM UP & THEY SHALL COME

  The next act in this unfolding drama will be an attempt to keep ahead of rising sea levels and it's attendant storm flooding  is already happening, as whole islands are gradually going to be re-zoned   as well as the surrounding low lying areas along the mainland.  New building elevation standards will be introduced and some people will either raise their homes or lose them to banks and mortgage companies. Many others will tear them down and rebuild higher and bigger.  Federal flood Ins. rates are going up as we all know and without flood Ins. many banks will not lend to someone to build , so the composition of who will be living at the beach is also going to shift back to toward the wealthy as time goes on.( they can afford to self insure.) The age of the a massive middle class coastal building boom has come to a sinking end. ( post H. Sandy)

60 Yrs. from Now

   In the year, 2083 barring a repeat of Melt Water 1A, what will it look like along the So. Jersey coastal region in that period? At the present rates of sea rise and added to it of land subsidence ( sinking 2 mm a yr.) all of the present barrier Islands and beaches will have narrowed considerably. It's impossible to say how much they'll narrow right now because there are just too many variables and ongoing beach replenishment is just one of them.  I would garner a guess that at some pt. up ahead as the noted NJ Coastal Geologist Norbert Psuty has said on many occasions, "either the money or the beach quality sand or both are going to run out and at that pt. these projects will end."  When that happens those beaches ( the artificially maintained ones) will erode away quickly and then the reckoning will begin. Before, then however, the ocean will assault all these places from the bay sides as we witnessed in Hurricane Sandy and many other large storms before her.  The barrier Islands and barrier beaches will be slowly abandoned from the bay side first ( ex. Ventnor hts. , Venice Park & along the bay fronts)  then the Inlet areas ( like Longport's pt. & AC's inlet ) and eventually and lastly along the beaches. If human nature is any guide by mid-22nd century a few very wealthy people will be left out here, having bought up what remains. By the late 22nd none of them will exist anymore, unless they have been filled and elevated artificially like was done to Galveston, Texas in 1900 after the infamous hurricane of that yr. that killed over 10K people in the worst single disaster in non-Native American history. The cost would be astronomical by then, but you never know some mega- gazillionaire of that era might be able to afford it, so I won't rule that possibility out totally. Even then it would be probably to build a private Island or an exclusive resort.

NEUTRAL  kind of

   So, that's why I will no longer stand in opposition to any of these projects going forward, at least not  as they are presently  funded.  I would be hard against them once again and stridently so, if the funding formulas flip flopped and local taxpayers had to then bear most of the burden of the endless refills needed to maintain and rebuild them every so many yrs.  By the way that would include us having to pick up the huge bill to build a behind the project drainage system and ocean outfalls as was mandated in 2000's Margate project plans.  That said, I'm also still not very pleased with the one size all model the State and the Feds. try to apply to every community.  As I have endlessly reiterated here for almost a decade now the one size all model effectively has destroyed Atlantic City's boardwalk based economy and with the decline of the Casino industry since the onset of the great Recession we now have very little left to offer our visitors. Adjustments have to made for the commercial realities along the coast even if it adds some risk to these structures.  Damaged boardwalks can be fixed and replaced , but boardwalks that don't provide the basics of some kind of view and sea breeze are almost worthless economically. They don't and will never attract large crowds again under such circumstances as exist today in AC. Why bother advertising them, frankly as they presently are constituted they're more of an embarrassment then an attraction. 

THE TRADE OFFS & CAVEATS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT

   In Margate beachfront homeowners must expect to lose some of their view as a trade off for whatever amount of storm surge protection a Project dune will provide ( atleast as long as it can be maintained that is.) The residents of Margate must also be prepared to have to walk over these structures as they have to do in AC and Ventnor and they also must be prepared for the possible loss of some beach width in front of the dune line. Why is that you might wonder? Because , ironically under certain circumstances the dune itself will actually increase the amount of beach erosion in front of it. As long as the beach in front of these things is refilled though this usually isn't a problem. The voters and residents in Margate must also realize refilling and repairing their project is NOT a guaranteed thing. It's based on whether Congress provides earmarked funding and if the Army decides you need repair and refill. ( the city doesn't get to decide this.)  So, don't vote for this based on some mistaken  assumption once you sign on they will always be here every 3 yrs. to refill and repair it, they won't. Remember, they didn't return to AC after doing the initial fill in 2003 for nearly 7 yrs!.  Also, remember this, that Cong. Lobiondo is not always going to be the chairperson of the Cong. committee that provides the funding for these projects. When and if the day comes and it will that he dies or retires or if the Dems. regain control of Congress as they did in 2004 we could and probably will lose our funding again. So, weigh all these facts carefully folks because once your in this thing it's hard getting out even if you want to. Oh, and one more rather counter intuitive thing before I move on here. Once you sign on to an Army Corp / NJDEP beach project you LOSE your FEMA emergency funding for your beach. Understand, what that might mean. Here's an example, if  another Sandy like Hurricane hits us a yr. after we join the Project and it wipes out our dune system and completely erodes our beach while at it, we will not be eligible for emergency FEMA money to repair the beach and dune system. Plus, the Army / NJDEP might then refer us to our contract and refuse to repair or refill anything unless WE fund it locally! It's happened just this way south of us in Sea Isle and Avalon check it out. In those towns the local taxpayers were put on the hook for millions to repair storm damaged beaches between Army scheduled refills.

COME THE REFERENDUM IN MARGATE

   If and when Margate decides to hold a citywide referendum on whether to join the AISPP I will be neutral on this vote. I will however, try to supply as much relevant information as possible so the voters can make up their minds on this proposed  city wide change. I'm proud now that 13 yrs. ago I was part of an effort to allow the voters to ultimately decide this issue. It's one of those kinds of changes that should be decided by the residents and I'd even say in all fairness the taxpayers as well. So, my recommendation if possible would be for Margate to hold a non-binding referendum which would allow both residents and taxpayers to vote and that the results would then be used  as a super poll for the City Commission to base it's actions on. If that is not a legal possibility then I would recommend a standard resident voter ballot only. In any event, I believe the people should decide this, not one or two Commissioners. (they should remember they  were not elected on any decisions related to the Beach.)  Margate is also NOT Longport which has a few hundred year round residents so it's NOT a good example to follow. We should follow Ventnor's example as ugly and contentious as it was back then. At least in retrospect, in Ventnor the community decided the way forward on this issue and today Margate's residents deserve  nothing less.

 

Related articles

• America's Coastal Denial