We are more worried about climate change than ever before.
We’ve been digesting the Fourth National Climate Assessment report over the past week — it was released by the Trump administration on Black Friday when many of us were shopping, watching football or enjoying time with family — looking at how it will affect us here in the Northeast, and hopefully, finding some nugget of good news.
We found it in “Chapter 18: Northeast.”
“Studies suggest that Northeast agriculture, with nearly $21 billion in annual commodity sales, will benefit from the changing climate over the next half-century due to a greater productivity over a longer growing season.”
Unfortunately, that is followed by a disclaimer that increased intense precipitation in the Northeast, leading to delays in planting and reduction in the number of days when fields are workable, will prevent farmers from reaping the full benefits of the longer growing season.
That’s about as good as it gets for us. The conclusions for the rest of the United States are far more bleak.
The report is a dark assessment of the economic impact that climate change will have on the country and the world. Climate change will not only affect our quality of life, it will also be catastrophic economically.
- Climate change is expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity and the vitality of our communities. The increased intensity of rain in the Northeast is already testing the capacities of aging drainage and sewer systems that will need to be repaired and replaced at enormous expense.
- Regional economies such as agriculture, tourism and fisheries are vulnerable to the growing impacts of climate change. The waters off New England have been warming, forcing many species of fish farther north or deeper into the Atlantic. That will have a profound effect on the fishing industry. The Maine lobster will soon be a rarity and the great white shark a regular visitor to Cape Cod.
- The average temperature in New England has increased 3 degrees F since 1901. Those higher temperatures — notably in the big cities of the East — will lead to significant increases in premature deaths, hospital admissions and emergency room visits.
- Rising temperatures and drought in other parts of the country — the Southeast and Southwest — are projected to reduce the efficiency of power generation (hydroelectric) while increasing energy demands and making electricity more expensive.
- Beyond our borders, climate change is expected to affect trade, including import and export prices and U.S. businesses with overseas operations and supply chains.
- Annual losses in some economic sectors are expected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century.
If you’ve read any of our past editorials on this subject, you know that climate change is settled science.
It is here.
It is getting worse.
We consider it the most dangerous problem facing the world — and our country — today, and our politicians should have addressed it yesterday.
Note to our great-great-grandchildren reading this from 2075: We want you to know we tried to sound the alarm. We are hoping this latest government report will finally lead to outrage from the American public and significant action to address the crisis.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration served as the lead agency of the report. A team of more than 300 federal and non-federal experts — including individuals from federal, state and local governments, tribes and indigenous communities, national laboratories, universities and the private sector — volunteered their time to produce the assessment.
There were regional engagement workshops with more than 1,000 individuals participating in over 40 cities while listening sessions, webinars and public comment periods provided valuable input in a report mandated by Congress that runs over 1,500 pages.
It opens with this information:
“Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities. The impacts of the global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future — but the severity of the future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur.”
It seems to be telling us there still may be hope, or maybe just pleading for us to pay attention.
What is clear from reading even just some of the report is how small shifts in temperature dramatically affect plant life, wildlife and insects, and in turn, our personal and professional lives.
The Northeast is expected to see shorter winters, impacting winter tourism. The temperature increases will lead to more tree pests that threaten our forests, a greater incidence of Lyme disease from a longer tick season and more car collisions with deer.
The other good news is that the Northeast has been more active than other parts of the country in preparing for the crisis ahead.
What is lacking now is national leadership.
When Middle East countries cut off our oil supply in the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon led a campaign to make America self-sufficient when it came to oil.
Those of us who lived through it remember the “50 is thrifty” slogan for driving on the highways, the introduction of smaller, more fuel-efficient cars and turning down the thermostat during the winter months.
We remember how the government addressed cigarettes as a health hazard by putting warnings from the surgeon general on cigarette packs and banning tobacco ads from television.
There were also national campaigns against littering and “to buckle up” when driving.
It made a difference.
It saved lives.
It got us to do the right thing.
That’s what we need now — to save the planet.
The irony is not lost on us that General Motors is closing some of its plants because there is more of a demand for gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs.
That’s on us for not accepting that larger cars are not in our best interest.
There are millions already doing their part. They are investing in solar energy projects for their homes and businesses, driving electric or hybrid cars, switching to energy-efficient appliances and bulbs in their homes and recycling.
But the report concludes we need to do much more:
“While Americans are responding in ways that can bolster resilience and improve livelihoods, neither global efforts to mitigate the causes of climate change nor regional efforts to adapt to the impacts currently approach the scales needed to avoid substantial damages to the U.S. economy, environment, and human health and well-being over the coming decades.”
We need the federal government to act in a big way now. We can pay now or pay later.
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(11) comments
In 2 years or less, the climate denialist in chief will be out of office hopefully headed somewhere with bars on the windows if justice needs serving. In the meantime, states and cities are at least taking action.
But you’re wrong when you say that America dropped out of the Paris agreement,” Schwarzenegger told delegates, praising “the extraordinary work that is going on in the state and city level in America.”
Fortunately, Trump only represents a minority.
Link
another by product of "climate change" are "wild fires". as we have witnessed the conflagrations in cali the focus is on property/life loss & mudslides. this am I listened to a discussion of the after effects of the air pollution caused by these disasters. it seems the incidence of breathing disorders are spiking in locals which have had massive fires.
my understanding of "climate change" is it manifests in changing weather patterns. consider a drought stricken Adirondacks and raging forest fires right in our own backyards.
The IPCC is a political agency. By repetition, and not science, they promote the thesis that a complex, dynamic multi-factor system can be summarized in just one variable - the global average temperature - controlled by the inconsequential disturbance of a single variable – carbon dioxide.
Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center recently warned of a cooling trend, and stated that sunspot activity has dropped precipitously, with the thermosphere losing significant heat energy.
Professor Valentina Zharkova presented her team's Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October. Their 2015 mathematical model confirmed the existence of a 350-400 year solar cycle, and reconfirmed past solar maximums and minimums with 97% accuracy. Basically, the sun's 4 magnetic fields are going out of phase. Past "little ice ages" have resulted from only 2 of the fields going out of phase.
Her model predicts a loss of 8 watts/sq m, whereas the IPCC model predicts an increase of 1.5 watts/sq m.
Cold is bad, and that's where we're headed. That's why the media blitz for failed Climate Change model predictions. They'll be yelling "global warming!" as we get frostbite.
Wasn't to long ago, we were all going freeze in the impending man made "ice age". Climate changes, always has, always will. As a man made event, it is far from unanimous among the scientific community as being responsible. This sky is falling, fear propaganda, is being pushed by a bigger need for the U.N. to redistribute the wealth of nations. Make no mistake, this headline is being pushed and orchestrated by the U.N. . Reaserch , before you comment.
with rising sea levels and temperature extremes becoming the "norm" the term "existential threat" should be given a lot more attention. 10 of the hottest years recorded have occurred in the last 20 years. maybe instead of wasting 700 billion/year on the military we should be developing alternatives to fossil fuels as a source of energy.
the united states has a long history of protecting dangerous industrialists by down playing the impact of their "products" on the population. "cover up" might be appropriate. but, those who profit from "pollution" continue to buy the lizards who infest congress.
We should've been worried about it a quarter century ago but better late than never. Heck, I just re-watched the film The American President and advocacy on the urgency of addressing climate change was a subplot in that movie from 1995. Climate change was known to be an issue all the way back then.
Here it is https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/26/how-extreme-weather-is-shrinking-the-planet
Check out this recent article from the New Yorker. The oil companies are behind making man induced climate change a "myth". Just like Big Tobacco hid cancer claims for so many years. Be smart or be a sheep.
Your editorial board's view is that, "We can pay now or we can pay later." Translation: Your opinion is to impose a carbon tax, (like France). A carbon tax is a tax on the working class. The French pay $1.64 per liter, or $7.06 per gallon for gasoline. One estimate is that 280,000 French citizens protested this. We will not tolerate these taxes in this nation.
Ok and your better idea is...? I'm sure you have one because inaction is not an option.
The "Report" is not new science, it is an interpretive report of others work... the authors clearly state "The findings in this report are based on an assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, complemented by other sources (such as gray literature) where appropriate. "
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Comments will not be posted if any of the following rules are violated:
- Comments must be contained to the topic of the articles only.
- Comments must be civil in tone and cannot contain personal insults directed toward another reader.
- Profanities cannot be used, including abbreviations or acronyms.
- Comments critical of crime or accident victims, or imply guilt are not allowed.
- Comments that are potentially libelous, including those that contain accusations not supported by facts are not allowed.
- Comments that appear to be taunting others who comment are not allowed.
- Comments should be brief and never more than 1,000 characters.