Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2009/08/21/OilandGas/

BC's oil and gas industry gets tax break at the pump, in the field
By COLLEEN KIMMETT
Published August 21, 2009 11:55 am | 3 Comments
Share article via email Print this article
Tax exemptions and royalty breaks for British Columbia's oil and gas industry is going to hinder the provincial government's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association (BCSEA).

Premier Gordon Campbell introduced plans for a harmonized sales tax (HST) last month. The tax will combine the five per cent provincial sales tax with the seven per cent federal sales tax. But some products -- including gasoline and diesel fuel -- are exempt from the provincial sales tax portion of the new HST.

While reducing taxes at the pump, the province has also slashed the royalty rates that oil and gas producers must pay at the source. According to some reports, it's a bid to woo the natural gas industry away from Alberta at a time when prices have reached a seven-year low. Wells drilled between September and June of 2010 will be subject to a two per cent royalty rate, instead of the typical 20 per cent rate, for one year.

"When the government is taking financial measures to provide incentives to the fossil fuel industry, we think that's going in the wrong direction," said BCSEA vice-president of policy Tom Hackney. BCSEA president Guy Dauncey, who wrote an editorial in the Georgia Straight this week on the HST, said the move puts the government in a contradictory situation.

"The deficit...has put government staff on panic stations all around, and it's about 'how do we save money,'" said Dauncey. "But it makes the province beholden to the fossil fuel industry by giving it tax relief...and it puts the government in a contradictory situation with it's GHG [greenhouse gas] emission goals."

Colleen Kimmett reports for The Tyee.

- See more at: http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2009/08/21/OilandGas/#sthash.75o4Jpq0.dpuf

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/11/26/30BillionToGreen/


If the $30 Billion We Give Oil Sands Went to Green Energy
What could Canada achieve then? Here's the jaw-dropping answer.
By Mitchell Anderson, 26 Nov 2010, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Tree turns into power cord
Related
Is This Any Way to Finance Clean Energy?
BC Hydro borrows capital at 1 per cent, private power firms pay 12 per cent or more. Campbell chose builders sure to make green power far more expensive.
$1.7 Billion and Rising: Taxpayers' Gas Bill for Oil Sands
Extractors gobble natural gas, deducting the cost from their taxes. That already huge public subsidy, hidden from view, is due to balloon.
Why Is Canada Freezing out Geothermal Power?
We're a world leader at creating it -- just about everywhere except in our own country.
Read more: Energy, Labour + Industry, Environment,
Many Canadians are surprised to learn they are paying more than half of the cost for all the natural gas consumed at the Alberta oil sands through tax and royalty write-offs -- $1.7 billion this year alone. With gas prices and consumption predicted to balloon in coming years, what will be the collective cost to the taxpayer in the next decade for turning gas into bitumen? And what else could we do with this money?

Based on projections from the Alberta government, natural gas demand for bitumen recovery and upgrading will grow to 26.7 billion cubic metres per year by 2019 -- an increase of more than 75 per cent over 2010.

Likewise, natural gas prices are projected to climb as high as $9.15 per gigajoule by 2019. Using official yearly estimates for price and demand, these cumulative natural gas costs may total $63 billion from 2009 to 2019.

Assuming the taxpayer is picking up half of the tab through tax and royalty write-offs, by the end of the decade the public will provide about $31 billion to some of the world's wealthiest corporations for the reverse alchemy of turning natural gas into tar.

What else might be accomplished with this massive amount of money? What would happen if $30 billion in public incentives were instead directed towards our nation's renewable energy sectors over the next 10 years?

A geothermal bonanza



According to figures provided by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA), $30 billion could create about 7,500 MW of installed base-load capacity. It would also create 45,000 person-years of employment in construction and an additional 13,000 permanent jobs.

Incredibly, the geothermal generating capacity of Canada remains zero in spite of Canadians being recognized as some of the world's leading experts in this field. Members of CanGEA collectively produce some 20 per cent of geothermal energy world-wide; however none of these companies have any installations in Canada due to lack of support from federal or provincial governments.

A solar success

Our solar industry could also make great progress with the right incentives. Canada has excellent solar resources, with cities like Winnipeg and Toronto having more potential solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity than Washington, Berlin or Tokyo.

The total installed PV capacity in Canada is approximately 150 MW and is growing rapidly, due largely to generous incentive programs in Ontario. Yet Canada still lags far behind many other nations in the race towards a clean energy economy. Germany's solar capacity is 65 times larger than ours. In 2009 alone, Germany installed 25 times more PV capacity than Canada has in total, and is expected to double 2009 numbers in 2010.

A $30 billion investment could help Canada become a global solar leader by 2020. Solar PV capacity in Canada costs about $5 per watt and is declining by about 10 per cent annually. Assuming a cost of $4.5/W over the next 10 years, Canada could install approximately 6,700 MW of distributed solar energy capacity by the end of the decade -- about double the capacity of the current number-two nation in the world. According to industry figures, this investment would also create around 180,000 jobs in the Canadian solar sector -- an increase of 6,500 per cent.

A wind windfall

And what about wind? Canada currently has about 4,000 MW of installed capacity, making us 11th in the world behind Denmark. With our abundant blustery weather we could potentially supply about 20 per cent of our energy demand from wind turbines. Thirty billion dollars could create another 8,000 MW of wind capacity by 2020 -- more than eight times the generating capacity of the controversial Site C dam in British Columbia and twice as cost effective per unit of energy. This investment would also create about 170,000 new jobs.

Growth of citizen subsidies to oil sands
How citizens' subsidy to oil sands firms will grow.

The massive natural gas write-offs available to Alberta's bitumen producers are only a small example of the uneven playing field in Canada between fossil fuels and renewable energy. A recent report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development showed that oil subsides in Canada in 2008 totalled $2.8 billion and that these subsidies resulted in lower government revenues, higher emissions and negligible employment benefits. The authors also noted that if nothing else changes, increased production will effectively double these subsidies as a share of government expenditures by 2020.

In contrast, the federal government slashed support to the renewable sector in the last federal budget by deciding not to extend the popular ecoEnergy for Renewable Power Program. Clean energy entrepreneurs were outraged. "Basically it means the federal government has no policy to encourage renewable energy whatsoever," said Glen Estill, president of Sky Generation to the Toronto Star. "That's shocking, isn't it?"

The soon-to-be defunct ecoEnergy program is a good example of how targeted policy intervention can have big payoffs for our renewable energy industry. This small subsidy of $0.01 per KWh cost the government $1.48 billion over 14 years but leveraged six to seven times that in private sector investment -- resulting in 4,000 MW of installed clean capacity.

Catalyzing $150 billion more invested

Likewise, a $30 billion public investment in clean energy incentives could potentially catalyze more than $180 billion in private sector investment. Put another way: multiply all the above estimates for new capacity and jobs in geothermal, solar and wind by six. If the results from ecoEnergy are any indication, $30 billion in public money spent burning natural gas in the oil sands this decade could instead incentivize more than 80,000 MW of new renewable generation capacity -- about 60 per cent of all electricity sources in the country combined.

So just how badly is Canada falling behind in the global race towards a low-carbon economy? The U.S. currently provides six times more support per capita towards renewable energy and conservation as Canada. It is no wonder that many of our clean energy businesses are choosing to take their business elsewhere.

"It is important to remember that emerging renewable energy is competing against industries and technologies that have benefited from significant government support for decades," said Tim Weis, the director of Renewable Energy and Efficiency Policy at the Pembina Institute. "It should not be surprising there is still a cost gap facing many renewable energy technologies, but rather how rapidly that gap is closing particularly in countries that are targeting clean energy development."

IEA graph showing global investment in energy R&D
Graph from International Energy Agency report showing global investment in energy research and development.

Canada must make some hard decisions about where our economy is going in the coming century. Do we want to become world leaders in renewable energy technology, or continue the boom and bust cycle of resource extraction? Do we want to reduce our carbon emissions, or remain one of the most carbon intensive economies in the world?

The bottom line question

The $30 billion the taxpayer will provide to oil sands operators this decade to convert natural gas into bitumen provides a clear example of current Canadian energy policy.

Imagine what might be accomplished if such incentives where instead applied to scaling up our renewable energy sector. These tax shifts could be revenue neutral to the government, but would radically change where our economy will be in 2020 and beyond.

This long-overdue conversation needs to happen. Canada remains one of very few countries without a national energy strategy. Even the business sector is calling for one -- including carbon pricing.

Isn't it high time for Canada to chart our own energy future, rather than wait for the U.S. and the rest of the world to lead the way?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141025152717.htm
Climate change caused by ocean, not just atmosphere
Date:
October 25, 2014
Source:
Rutgers University
Summary:
Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere. A new study reveals another equally important factor in regulating Earth's climate. Researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil...a-barrel-in-2015-goldman-sachs-says-1.2814041

Oil price will fall to $70 a barrel in 2015, Goldman Sachs says
World is producing more than it needs, thanks to boom in shale oil, bank says
By Pete Evans, CBC News Posted: Oct 27, 2014 9:38 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 27, 2014 1:28 PM ET

Oil prices have fallen precipitously in recent months, but Goldman Sachs says they may fall further still.
Oil prices have fallen precipitously in recent months, but Goldman Sachs says they may fall further still. (Gregory Bull/Associated Press)

160 shares

Facebook

Twitter

Reddit

Google

Share

Email
Related Stories

Loonie oil prices could fall much further: Don Pittis
Oil price at $85 costing provinces and economy billions
Brent crude oil slides to lowest price since 2010
Low oil prices mean 'real challenge' to reach budget goals: Ross Wiseman
One of the world's leading investment banks says the benchmark price of North American oil is going to fall even further, to $70 US a barrel by next spring.

Investment bank Goldman Sachs slashed its forecast late Sunday night for both West Texas Intermediate (known as WTI) and Brent crude — the two most common types of oil used and sold in North America and Europe.

Goldman Sachs says WTI will go for $75 a barrel in the first three months of 2015. Brent, meanwhile, will change hands at $85 a barrel. Both forecasts are down $15 from what the bank was last expecting. And both are forecast to slip even lower in the second quarter — historically a seasonally low time for oil prices — before rebounding a little in the summer of 2015.

How $85 oil is costing Canadian governments billions
Loonie oil prices could fall much further: Don Pittis
If the prediction on WTI proves correct, it will be the lowest price for North American oil since 2010, when crude was on its way higher after cratering during the recession of 2008 and 2009.

Currently, WTI is trading just below $80. That's down from more than $100 a barrel as recently as four months ago.

The main reason the bank cited for its call is simple supply and demand — there's just more oil being produced now than the world needs, the bank says.

A boom in shale oil and gas in North America this year and last has drastically increased the amount of oil in circulation. This month, it's expected that the U.S. will pump out more crude oil than Saudi Arabia does — the first time that's been the case since the early 1970s.

'The slump in global oil prices couldn't have come at a worse time for Canada.'
—Capital Economics
Goldman says the North American oil price will average $73.75 for 2015 as a whole. Last year, the bank predicted the average price of North American oil would be $94.83 this year.

A sustained period of cheap oil would be welcomed by drivers and sectors of Canada's economy most affected by energy costs. But on the whole, it's likely to be bad news for Canada's economy, some experts said Monday.

"The slump in global oil prices couldn't have come at a worse time for Canada," Capital Economics said in a note to clients Monday. "For a country that now produces 4.5 million barrels of crude oil per day, the recent decline in prices … represents a loss of $2.5 billion in annual revenue for producers."

Profits drying up

That's not to say Canada's oil patch isn't still turning a profit, though the same can't be said of some operations in other countries that have only recently started developing previously unprofitable oil deposits. Capital Economics says oil prices would have to drop a lot further before operations in Canada start selling at a loss, or shutting down.

"World oil prices are expected to remain above the marginal cost of domestic production and, therefore, don't pose a threat to existing oil operations," Capital Economics said.

With files from Reuters

 

[OldBlackDog]

Something to tell us all it is wrong.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.co...-parks-are-endangered-humans-arent-cause25818

 

[Cuba Libre]

Several citizens have camped out on Burnaby Mountain in protest over the access granted to Kinder Morgan to resume its pipeline test drilling by the National Energy Board on Thursday.

The company can now give the City of Burnaby 48 hours notice, and legally access the contentious Conservation area. They have erected a physical blockade of wood and construction materials to prevent access to the bole hole areas the company wishes to drill. They say they have 100 people ready to attend.

SFU biochemistry professor Lynne Quarmby is among those attending the site, and says she is prepared to be arrested to stop the activity. She previously was arrested in 2012 for blocking coal trains for export. This is her commentary below.

In the past 24 hours tensions have been rising as we anticipate the return of Kinder Morgan with an injunction and orders for us to be arrested. A group of us has been holding vigil in the Conservation Forest on Burnaby Mountain since the September 3 felling of thirteen trees by a Kinder Morgan crew.

The bylaw-violating tree cutters were doing preparatory work for the proposed Kinder Morgan Expansion project, which aims to pipe diluted bitumen flowing from Alberta to fill oil tankers destined for Asia. Last week the NEB awarded Kinder Morgan the right to access and work in the Burnaby Park, provided that they give the City two days notice. On Friday, Kinder Morgan gave that notice. We don’t know when they will arrive.

We sit there in the weather and exchange stories. We are union employees, students, professors, music teachers, and unemployed. Most of us did not know one another before our involvement in this action. In diverse ways, we are all moved to protect this land. Sitting there in the beauty of the dripping forest an aboriginal man gave me stories of his life and his people, a gift that launched me on a personal journey of reconciliation. We are becoming a community.

Burnaby kinder morgan blockade
Physical blockade errected on Burnaby Mountain on Friday - photo provided by Stephen Collis

The NEB has favored Kinder Morgan in every decision so far, showing complete disregard for the Coast Salish people concerned about the disposition of their land; the people of Burnaby concerned about parkland and neighborhoods; and the large numbers of British Columbians who do not want to see an increased risk of oil spills on our coast. These concerns the NEB have heard and rejected. They have refused to even listen to those of us concerned about climate change.

Here are three facts about climate change that deserve your attention:

Climate change is upon us & it will be getting worse. This is a scientifically established fact that is not up for debate.
A major contributing factor to global warming (the cause of climate change) is the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. This too is a scientific fact.
Our federal and provincial governments refuse to consider climate change when approving new fossil fuel projects. This is a factual statement about our world today.

The only world in which it is okay to continue building new infrastructure for fossil fuels with no consideration for climate change is a world where we don’t care about the future, or about other places on the globe, or about disappearing species, or about ocean acidification.

I live in a world where we care about these things. And in my world we have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to stop construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure that is approved without consideration of the cumulative effects on climate change. Unfortunately, we are running out of options.

The mad push for pipelines, coal ports, fracking and LNG plants without consideration of the impact on climate change is wrong. Until our governments wake up to that truth, we can expect to see increasing numbers of citizens engaging in direct actions to block these projects. I will be among them and I hope that you will support us.

Lynne Quarmby is a Professor and Chair of Molecular Biology & Biochemistry at Simon Fraser University

 

[GLG]

Something to tell us all it is wrong.

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.co...-parks-are-endangered-humans-arent-cause25818

Huh... I don't get what your trying to tell us..
Regardless... Is this where you are getting your science from now?
An Op-ed from a website called the national parks traveler?
Perhaps you could point us to his peer reviewed paper with his theory that global warming is not man made and it does not exist? Until you dig up that paper or for that matter any paper he has written consider this.....
97% of the climate scientists say man made global warming is true and it is very serious. I take that as a serious risk to the future generations that will come after us old men. How much risk are you willing to accept that it is true. Do you think it's 50 / 50 chance that it's true and serious? Perhaps 10 / 90 with the greater chance that it's not true? Even though your team has no science to back up your risk assessment. Let's, just for the sake of argument, take the 10% chance that AGW is true. Would you still take that risk on your families well being? Are they not too precious to be gambling with their future with that level of risk? Consider that you have a great deal of investment in your home and you like me would not consider going cheap on fire insurance. You and I both know that if we had a fire and we were not insured the loss would be devastating. Do you also know that the chance of either of us having our hose burn down is .01%. Why is it that you are so quick to dismiss the risk of AGM and yet you buy fire insurance? Perhaps it's time you canceled that fire insurance and gamble on your family. Let me know when you have done that and I will "change my mind".

 

[GLG]

Op-ed but interesting just the same......

The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial


<header class="article-header" id="article_header" style="margin-bottom: 20px; color: rgb(40, 27, 33); font-family: sl-Apres; font-size: 15.4545450210571px; line-height: 19.0909080505371px;">By Phil Plait
</header><section class="content " style="padding-right: 88px; color: rgb(40, 27, 33); font-family: sl-Apres; font-size: 15.4545450210571px; line-height: 19.0909080505371px;">
To me, one of the most fascinating aspects of climate change denial is how deniers essentially never publish in legitimate journals, but instead rely on talk shows, grossly error-laden op-eds, and hugely out-of-date claims (that were never right to start with).

In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.

Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!




One. Yes, one. Here’s what that looks like as a pie chart:

</section>Huh. Here’s the thing: If you listen to Fox News, or right-wing radio, or read the denier blogs, you’d have to think climate scientists were complete idiots to miss how fake global warming is. Yet despite this incredibly obvious hoax, no one ever publishes evidence exposing it. Mind you, scientists are a contrary lot. If there were solid evidence that global warming didn’t exist, or that CO2 emissions weren’t the culprit, there would be papers in the journals about it. Lots of them.

I base this on my own experience with contrary data in astronomy. In 1998, two teams of researchers found evidence that the expansion of the Universe was not slowing down, as expected, but actually speeding up. This idea is as crazy as holding a ball in your hand, letting go, and having it fall up, accelerating wildly into the sky. Yet those papers got published. They inspired lively discussion (to say the least) and motivated further observations. Careful, meticulous work was done to eliminate errors and confounding factors, until it became very clear that we were seeing an overturning of the previous paradigm. It took years, but now astronomers accept that the Universal expansion is accelerating and that dark energy is the culprit.

Mind you, dark energy is far, far weirder than anything climate change deniers have come up with, yet it became mainstream science in a decade or so. Deniers have been bloviating for longer than that, yet their claims are rejected overwhelmingly by climate scientists. Why? Because they’re wrong.

Of course, if you listen to some politicians, you’d never know. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), for example, still claims it’s all a hoax. Of course, he still thinks Climategate was a thing, when it’s been shown repeatedly to have been totally manufactured. He also thinks global warming must be wrong because it got cold outside. With all due respect to the senator, he’d fail middle school science. Good thing he’s on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. His denial of reality is joined by three-fourths of the Republicans on the House Science Committee, who still have their heads firmly buried in the sand.

Happily, though, there is opposition. Democrats in the Senate are pushing for Congress to take this situation more seriously, forming a “Climate Action Task Force” whose goal is to “wake up Congress.” They want to help organize civil groups to pressure senators into taking action about climate change.

Let me make a none-too-subtle political point here. Climate change deniers in politics and in the media are overwhelmingly Republican (or “free market libertarians,” who have aligned themselves to virtual indistinguishability from the GOP, or more likely vice versa). When I write on the politics of this issue I get accused of being biased, which is ironic indeed. I didn’t start this fight, nor did I draw the partisan lines. I’m just shining a light on them. I know some pro-science Republicans, but the ones in elected office are few and far between.


The basic science of global warming is independent of party line. It doesn’t care if you’re left, right, black, white, straight, gay, pro-gun, pro-abortion rights, pro-GMO, or pro-vaccine. It’s real, and it affects all of us. Mission No. 1 is to get people to understand this, and then to get them to elect politicians who do as well.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...y_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

 

[GLG]

Big shock..... OBD you have been granted permission to admit to climate change. This comes from the GOP....
[KQlX13tUSh8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQlX13tUSh8

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s-florida-officials-vote-to-cut-state-in-half

Citing Rising Seas, Florida Officials Vote to Cut State in Half
Oct 22, 2014 4:47 PM PDT
The measure now heads to the officials in the counties that would comprise the new state.

David Knowles
David Knowles
t writerknowles

Could global warming lead to the creation of the nation's 51st state? Officials in the City of South Miami have voted to cut Florida in two because, they argue, politicians in the northern parts of the state are ignoring the problem of rising sea levels brought on by climate change.

"It's very apparent that the attitude of the northern part of the state is that they would just love to saw the state in half and just let us float off into the Caribbean," South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard told the Sun-Sentinel.

The scarcely-reported resolution passed on October 7 by a 3-2 vote, and will now be sent to the governing bodies of the South Florida counties that would comprise the new state for their consideration, the Sun-Sentinel reported.

“We have to be able to deal directly with this environmental concern and we can’t really get it done in Tallahassee.”

City of South Miami Vice Mayor Walter Harris
"We have to be able to deal directly with this environmental concern and we can’t really get it done in Tallahassee," Vice Mayor Walter Harris told paper. "I don’t care what people think—it’s not a matter of electing the right people."

On average, North Florida is 120 feet above sea level, the resolution states, while the average elevation in South Florida is below 50 feet. Groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have forecast a 3- to 6-foot rise in sea level in Florida over the next 100 years.

During Tuesday's gubernatorial debate, Governor Rick Scott declined to say whether he believed in man-made global warming, but boasted of spending "$350 million to deal with sea level rise down in the Keys." Democratic candidate Charlie Crist, on the other hand, said he did "believe in global warming," and pledged to spend more on the development of renewable energy sources if elected.

Thanks to rising sea levels, coastal flooding in South Florida is getting worse, new studies have found.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/08/354166982/climate-change-worsens-coastal-flooding-from-high-tides

Climate Change Worsens Coastal Flooding From High Tides
by CHRISTOPHER JOYCE
October 08, 2014 5:47 PM ET
Listen to the Story javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(354166982, 354639769, null, NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, '0')
All Things Considered 4 min 7 sec
Playlist javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(354166982, 354639769, null, NPR.Player.Action.ADD_TO_PLAYLIST, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, '0')
Download http://pd.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/...ens_coastal_flooding_from_king_tides.mp3?dl=1
Transcript http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=354166982
Cindy Minnix waits for a bus in a flooded street on Oct. 18, 2012, in Miami Beach. A changing climate is making floods related to high tides more frequent, scientists say.
Cindy Minnix waits for a bus in a flooded street on Oct. 18, 2012, in Miami Beach. A changing climate is making floods related to high tides more frequent, scientists say.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
A wave of high tides is expected to hit much of the East Coast this week. These special tides — king tides — occur a few times a year when the moon's orbit brings it close to the Earth.

But scientists say that lately, even normal tides throughout the year are pushing water higher up onto land. And that's causing headaches for people who live along coastlines.

“ Our projections show that in the next 15 years, two-thirds of the communities we looked at could see a tripling or more in the number of high-tide flood events.
- Melanie Fitzpatrick, climate scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists
As Bob Dylan might have put it, the tides, they are a changin'.

High tides around the East and Gulf coasts are getting higher, to the point where regular high tides are beginning to look more like the rare king tides hitting the East Coast this week.

Ocean scientists say tides are higher because sea levels are higher. The result is a growing epidemic of small floods in coastal communities.

"What we have found," says oceanographer William Sweet, "is that nuisance flooding has substantially increased in frequency." Sweet is with the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and when he says "substantially increased," he means a lot. "We had areas that were increasing by a factor of 9 over the past 50 years," he says. That's nine times as many nuisance floods from high tides in some places.

Bangladeshi women make their way through flood water at Dhakuria in Sirajgonj district.
Causes
With Climate Change Comes Floods
Melbourne visitors and residents took to the waters of Australia's St. Kilda Beach in January 2013 to escape a fierce heat wave.
Science
When Can A Big Storm Or Drought Be Blamed On Climate Change?
NOAA scientists say the big increase is the result of shifts in climate — oceans are, on average, 8 inches higher than a century ago. And, Sweet says, it's going to get worse.

"Sea level rise is expected to accelerate during the next century," he says, "as the oceans continue to warm and expand, and the ice shelves lose mass as the water melts and enters into the ocean."

NOAA's conclusions on rising tides come from a century of data collected by tide gauges placed along coastlines. The same data are the basis of a study http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...l-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico#.VDWeA1dBC8A out this week from an environmental group, the Union of Concerned Scientists. Called Encroaching Tides, the report forecasts what higher tides could mean for 52 communities from Maine to Texas.

"Certainly communities that are unfamiliar with flood conditions will start to see that flooding regularly," says Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist and one of the study's authors. "And our projections show that in the next 15 years, two-thirds of the communities we looked at could see a tripling or more in the number of high-tide flood events."

This includes cities like Boston; New Haven, Conn.; Washington, D.C.; Charleston, S.C.; and Miami. Fitzpatrick says communities have three options: "First, is living with it. Secondly, is actually moving back — retreating. And the third way to address it is to fortify and defend."

The city of Annapolis in Maryland is doing all three. Annapolis sits at the mouth of the Severn River on the Chesapeake Bay. Founded in 1649, it was a colonial port.

Life still revolves around the city dock; workers today are preparing for the nation's largest sailboat show. Historic buildings from the 18th century surround the dock. "Our historic district is the economic core," says Lisa Craig, who runs the city's historic preservation division. She directs my attention to the tower of the statehouse, built in the 18th century.

"Look, we're standing here looking straight up at the statehouse dome," Craig says. "It's the capital city — I mean this is an iconic, historic community." And many of the city's buildings are now threatened by freakish high tides.

In fact, nuisance floods here have increased from about four each year in the 1950s to nearly 40 per year now. Annapolis leads the country in the increase in nuisance flooding recorded by NOAA — a nearly tenfold increase since the 1950s.

A cyclist rides past buckled asphalt in Key West, Fla., after Hurricane Wilma in 2005. Key West experienced widespread flooding with the storm surge.
Environment
Key West Awash With Plans For Rising Sea Level
Craig says people have learned to live with it. "I walk down to the yacht club at 11:45 to go to lunch," she says. "And I anticipate, on some high-tide days, that I'm not going to be able to walk back; I'm going to have to take the long way around."

But the city is fortifying itself too. New flood maps identify buildings that are in jeopardy. There's a tax break for owners who prepare for flooding. Prep could mean simply building a barrier across a door sill or windows, or something more robust.

"Some businesses may want to increase the height of the interior of the property and create a step up or two steps up if that's the case, or a ramp," Craig says.

Holding back water has now become business as usual in downtown Annapolis. And if sea level keeps rising, it will be routine in a lot of other places as well.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...l-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico#.VE_NTvnF-Yx

Encroaching Tides (2014)

Encroaching tides report cover
Tidal flooding, driven by sea level rise, will dramatically increase in U.S. East and Gulf Coast communities over the next 30 years.
DOWNLOAD
Full report http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/encroaching-tides-full-report.pdf
Executive summary http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/encroaching-tides-executive-summary.pdf
Technical appendix http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/encroaching-tides-technical-appendix.pdf
On the Front Line of Tidal Flooding: Community Profiles
Miami, FL
Savannah and Tybee Island, GA
Annapolis, MD
Outer Banks, NC
South Jersey Shore, NJ
Jamaica Bay, NY
Charleston, SC
Norfolk, VA
Today scores of coastal communities are seeing more frequent flooding during high tides. As sea level rises higher over the next 15 to 30 years, tidal flooding is expected to occur more often, cause more disruption, and even render some areas unusable — all within the time frame of a typical home mortgage.

An analysis of 52 tide gauges in communities stretching from Portland, Maine to Freeport, Texas shows that most of these communities will experience a steep increase in the number and severity of tidal flooding events over the coming decades, with significant implications for property, infrastructure, and daily life in affected areas.

Given the substantial and nearly ubiquitous rise in the frequency of floods at these 52 locations, many other communities along the East and Gulf Coasts will need to brace for similar changes.

A daily cycle gains disruptive force
Woman boarding bus in flooded street in Miami, Florida
Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images North America
Twice each month (during new and full moons), the combined gravitational pull of the sun and moon creates tides that rise slightly higher than normal.

graph of local sea level rise and tidal flooding 1970-2012
Local Sea Level Rise and Tidal Flooding, 1970–2012 (Boston, MA; Atlantic City, NJ; Norfolk, VA; Charleston, SC)
In some coastal communities, these extreme tides, or spring tides, flood low-lying areas. In many locations, these floods are happening much more often than just 40 years ago. In several communities, tidal flooding has quadrupled in frequency since 1970.

Today most tidal flooding events are minor, disrupting local transportation and daily life for brief periods of time. More extensive moderate flooding does occur in some locations from tides alone, but infrequently. Strong winds, rainfall, and storms that coincide with high tides can result in even more extensive and damaging floods.

Sea level rise, driven primarily by global warming, is the main cause of observed increases in tidal flooding. While global sea level rose roughly eight inches from 1880 to 2009, much higher rates have occurred along parts of the East Coast, including New York City (more than 17 inches since 1856), Baltimore (13 inches since 1902), and Boston (nearly 10 inches since 1921).

Tidal flooding in 2030: From occasional to chronic in 15 years
Flooded neighborhood in Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Photo: Tim Hayes/Puddleduck Photo
graph of historical and projected sea level rise
Historical and Projected Sea Level Rise (Global Average)
By 2030, more than half of the 52 communities studied are projected to experience, on average, at least 24 tidal floods per year in exposed areas, assuming moderate sea level rise projections. Twenty of these communities could see a tripling or more in tidal flooding events.

The mid-Atlantic coast is expected to see some of the greatest increases in flood frequency. Places such as Annapolis, Maryland and Washington, DC can expect more than 150 tidal floods a year, and several locations in New Jersey could see 80 tidal floods or more.

As sea level rises, many tidal flooding events will shift from being minor to more extensive, with accompanying increases in disruptions and damage.

Tidal flooding in 2045: From chronic to incessant
Girl wading through tidally flooded street in Jamaica Bay, New York
Photo: Peter Mahon/West 12th Road Block Association
By 2045, many coastal communities are expected to see roughly one foot of sea level rise. The resulting increases in tidal flooding will be substantial and nearly universal in the 52 communities analyzed.

One-third of the 52 locations would face tidal flooding more than 180 times per year. Nine locations, including Atlantic City and Cape May, New Jersey could see tidal flooding 240 times or more per year.

A growing proportion of these floods would be extensive, and as floods reach farther into communities, they would also last longer. Flood-prone areas in five of the mid-Atlantic communities studied could be inundated more than 10 percent of the time.


As the reach of the tides expands, communities now largely unfamiliar with tidal flood conditions will be forced to grapple with chronic flooding -- a new normal. Many of the studied locations that today see fewer than five tidal floods per year could see a 10-fold increase in the number of floods annually by 2045.

What we can do: Sensible steps and forward-looking policies
Sea level rise planning meeting in bridgeport, connecticut
Photo: WB Unabridged with Yale ARCADIS Team
Increased tidal flooding is essentially guaranteed. Changes already set in motion by our past and present heat-trapping emissions will largely drive the pace of sea level rise and flooding over the next several decades.

chart of tidal flooding today, in 2030, and in 2045
Tidal Flooding Today, in 2030, and in 2045
Coastal communities must act with urgency to prepare for this rising threat — and there are many things we can do to help ensure enduring coastal communities.

Municipalities, with state and federal help, should prioritize and incentivize flood-proofing of homes, neighborhoods, and key infrastructure; curtail development in areas subject to tidal flooding; consider the risks and benefits of adaptation measures such as sea walls and natural buffers; and develop long-term plans based on the best available science.

The costs and challenges, however, are too great for municipalities to shoulder alone. A coordinated, well-funded federal response is also needed and should include both substantial investments in coastal resilience building, as well as action to deeply and swiftly reduce global warming pollution. This latter action may ultimately be the only reliable way to protect coastal communities over the long term – by slowing the pace of future sea level rise.

There is a hard truth about adaptation, however. It has fundamental limits — whether physical, economic, or social — and it can only fend off the impacts of sea level rise to a point.

As sea level rises higher, even our best protection efforts will not suffice in some areas in the face of rising tides, waves, and storm surges.

Flooded neighborhood on Tybee Island, Georgia
Photo: Jason Evans/Georgia Sea Grant
If it reaches limits of coastal adaptation, a community will face the prospect of shifting back from heavily impacted areas. These limits will arrive sooner in those areas exposed to greater risks, those with more fragile ecosystems and limited natural buffers, and those that are less well-off economically.

Leaders at all levels of government need to take seriously the risks facing people living along our coasts and the urgent need for action. We must prepare our communities for encroaching tides and other impacts of sea level rise even as we make a concerted effort to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that will determine the rate at which the ocean rises over the long term.
<iframe width="812" height="535" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/W_ArBymbyA4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[OldBlackDog]

'Where the Boys Are' Disproves Rising Seas Scare

| October 24, 2014 | 9:25 PM EDT

"Where the Boys Are" is both an entertaining 1960 movie as well as a catchy Connie Francis song which was the theme tune of the film. However, it now appears that "Where the Boys Are" is performing a great unintended public service. The opening credits of the movie has preserved for us an aerial view just where the ocean of 1960 was in relation to the sand and State Road A1A in Fort Lauderdale. Guess what? The beach is exactly as wide now as it was in 1960.

On Friday morning Brian Craig, co-host of the Steve Kane Show, the longest running radio program in South Florida mentioned that just by watching "Where the Boys Are" you can see the beach is just as wide now as 54 years ago. Your humble correspondent decided to verify this assertion and found this title credits aerial view of Fort Lauderdale Beach. Yup! The current ocean level is just about where it was when George Hamilton and Yvette Mimieux were working on their tans at the beach back then.

The one person who really needs to watch that 1960 aerial view of Fort Lauderdale Beach is the rising sea levels Chicken Little of South Florida, David Fleshler of the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel. His most recent example of Chicken Littleism is this gem from a couple of weeks ago:


Fleshler tells Greening of the Great Lakes host, Kirk Heinze, that higher sea levels are already here, and coastal communities are noticing the impacts every day.

"People who have lived here for a long time will tell you they see more water on streets and sidewalks, even if it's a sunny day," he says. "Much of this is coming in through storm sewers from the intracoastal waterways and the ocean."

"Higher sea levels are already here?" Really? Better check the title credits of "Where the Boys Are" and then compare with the current beach width from the ocean to AIA. Virtually identical, Mr. Chicken Little of the Sea.

 

[GLG]

'Where the Boys Are' Disproves Rising Seas Scare

| October 24, 2014 | 9:25 PM EDT

"Where the Boys Are" is both an entertaining 1960 movie as well as a catchy Connie Francis song which was the theme tune of the film........

"Higher sea levels are already here?" Really? Better check the title credits of "Where the Boys Are" and then compare with the current beach width from the ocean to AIA. Virtually identical, Mr. Chicken Little of the Sea.

Rock bottom there OBD.... Now your getting your science from a professional comedian. Want proof.... here it is.
I found your post in a web search here.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2014/10/24/where-boys-are-disproves-rising-seas-scare

On the same website I clicked the bio of the author and this lead me here..
http://newsbusters.org/author/pj-gladnick

P.J. Gladnick Contributing Writer
I am probably the only writer on NewsBusters to have received an award from the Soviet Union. It was for my work as an American correspondent for Krokodil Magazine which you can see chronicled in I Was A Commie Writer.
I live in South Florida which is full of eccentrics which is why I feel right at home here. My main accomplishments in life were winning a bottle of aftershave when I was eight and having the biggest PING List (over 1000 Pingees) on the Free Republic forum for my DUmmie FUnnies blog. This is fortunate since I suffer severely from Ping List Envy.
Prior to the advent of the Web, I wrote a syndicated humor column that appeared in dozens of newspapers throughout North America. Only complete humility forbids me from telling you that my columns appeared in the Houston Chronicle, St. Petersburg Times, L.A Herald-Examiner, Winnipeg Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Vancouver Sun, and lots of other periodicals that I am much to humble to list.
Oh, I also produced an award-winning satirical comix website called PJ's Comix. This sort of balances out the fact that I am the WORST basketball player in the world.
When I lived in Los Angeles, I wrote comedy material for comedians. Sorry, due to business ethics I can't reveal any of their names (Argus Hamilton).
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/author/pj-gladnick#sthash.LTwD4iTX.dpuf


Your funny... so is this guy. Ever heard of due diligence? You want to be credible in the community then you need to do your due diligence.

Due diligence is an investigation of a business or person prior to signing a contract, or an act with a certain standard of care.
It can be a legal obligation, but the term will more commonly apply to voluntary investigations. A common example of due diligence in various industries is the process through which a potential acquirer evaluates a target company or its assets for anacquisition.[SUP][1][/SUP] The theory behind due diligence holds that performing this type of investigation contributes significantly to informed decision making by enhancing the amount and quality of information available to decision makers and by ensuring that this information is systematically used to deliberate in a reflexive manner on the decision at hand and all its costs, benefits, and risks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence


[h=2]Definition of DUE DILIGENCE[/h]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due diligence
the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property

This is where you and your team is a FAIL - GLG

 

[GLG]

[7zA4FEWWmFM] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zA4FEWWmFM&list=UU-KTrAqt2784gL_I4JisF1w

 

[triplenickel]

It's a problem that the solution is clear and you are part of that problem

GLG glad to see you're consistent, still up on the high horse preaching like your **** doesn't stink. Carry on consuming, carry on putting new/more cars on the road, carry on with multiple fishing trips hundreds of kms from home. Make sure you get your limit each time like you posted in the past in the Browns Bay thread, take as much of the resource as you can.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Cour...af8e89c8e!2m2!1d-125.374062!2d50.162006?hl=en

You are as much a part of the problem as anyone else, don't forget where you chose to live and what it takes to get consumables to you. Keep feeding the machine while posting here as if it makes a difference. lol This thread is such a silly circle jerk.

 

[agentaqua]

GLG glad to see you're consistent, still up on the high horse preaching like your **** doesn't stink. Carry on consuming, carry on putting new/more cars on the road, carry on with multiple fishing trips hundreds of kms from home. Make sure you get your limit each time like you posted in the past in the Browns Bay thread, take as much of the resource as you can.

https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Cour...af8e89c8e!2m2!1d-125.374062!2d50.162006?hl=en

You are as much a part of the problem as anyone else, don't forget where you chose to live and what it takes to get consumables to you. Keep feeding the machine while posting here as if it makes a difference. lol This thread is such a silly circle jerk.

3x5 - we all consume - yes. If we had more options available to us wrt alternative energy economies - we all would consume less. Yes - we all shoulder some "blame" for C02 levels increasing.

The point of this thread is to highlight the seriousness of this issue. Just because you work in the fossil fuel industry does not mean that you do not also contribute - nor does it mean that GLG is full of "sh*t" pointing this out. I think you are confusing things here. Maybe that is a defensive attitude sneaking in from feeling some personal guilt on your employment. Personally - I think your job position doesn't need defending and has nothing to do with this discussion. If we were discussing logistics and methodologies of tar sands extraction - verses the real phenomenon of global climate change - then your experience would be valuable input. Working as a roughneck or any other tar sands job does not make you an expert on climate change any more than driving a vehicle makes any one of us an expert. Maybe try reading the science and accepting that there are real and important things discussed within this thread - or don't bother reading it at all - if you want. Just don't attack GLC and expect that to be a valid debate or valuable input.

 

[triplenickel]

3x5 - we all consume - yes. If we had more options available to us wrt alternative energy economies - we all would consume less. Yes - we all shoulder some "blame" for C02 levels increasing.

The point of this thread is to highlight the seriousness of this issue. Just because you work in the fossil fuel industry does not mean that you do not also contribute - nor does it mean that GLG is full of "sh*t" pointing this out. I think you are confusing things here. Maybe that is a defensive attitude sneaking in from feeling some personal guilt on your employment. Personally - I think your job position doesn't need defending and has nothing to do with this discussion. If we were discussing logistics and methodologies of tar sands extraction - verses the real phenomenon of global climate change - then your experience would be valuable input. Working as a roughneck or any other tar sands job does not make you an expert on climate change any more than driving a vehicle makes any one of us an expert. Maybe try reading the science and accepting that there are real and important things discussed within this thread - or don't bother reading it at all - if you want. Just don't attack GLC and expect that to be a valid debate or valuable input.

You're the confused one in this case, you fully missed the point of my post. Glad to see you post something of your own though even if you're making huge ridiculous leaps from your misguided interpretation. How could you possibly say "Just because you work in the fossil fuel industry does not mean that you do not also contribute" where the heck did you get that from, and does it make sense in your brain? If you'd been paying attention you'd know I don't work in the oil sands.

I've read it all, I get it, I understand there's a problem. Reread and you'll not find anywhere I've denied it. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of one of the most vocal posters in this thread. He has choices, he doesn't need to drive nearly 200kms to go fishing (when he's posted in this very thread he's gonna stay closer to home), he doesn't need to be putting extra vehicles on the road (just building them has an impact) he choses to live where everything has to be ferried in, if he's going to consume at that level he can stop saying that others are the problem. I'm not confusing anything, I'm tired of the hypocrites fighting resource extraction that runs our lives and economies at every turn while gobbling it up. There's alternative energy choices available to all of us that will meet everyone of your household NEEDS (not wants), stop sitting here finger pointing and go for it. Carry on chasing your tails here if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Asia isn't gonna stop growing, we can fill the energy gap or someone else will with third world produced gas and coal, your choice.

Just don't attack GLC and expect that to be a valid debate or valuable input.

I have no desire to do either of the latter.

 

[seadna]

And the point of your post was?

 

[OldBlackDog]

First, did you actually look at the article or just google who wrote it?

The article was directed at the article about the ocean rise in florida.
To avoid confusion, it's important to know that king tides aren't part of climate change; they are a natural part of tidal cycles but they do give us a sneak preview of what higher sea levels could look like. The actual height reached by a king tide will depend on the local weather and ocean conditions on the day.


But i am sure you knew about tides just do not confuse with global warming.





Swq

Rock bottom there OBD.... Now your getting your science from a professional comedian. Want proof.... here it is.
I found your post in a web search here.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2014/10/24/where-boys-are-disproves-rising-seas-scare

On the same website I clicked the bio of the author and this lead me here..
http://newsbusters.org/author/pj-gladnick

P.J. Gladnick Contributing Writer
I am probably the only writer on NewsBusters to have received an award from the Soviet Union. It was for my work as an American correspondent for Krokodil Magazine which you can see chronicled in I Was A Commie Writer.
I live in South Florida which is full of eccentrics which is why I feel right at home here. My main accomplishments in life were winning a bottle of aftershave when I was eight and having the biggest PING List (over 1000 Pingees) on the Free Republic forum for my DUmmie FUnnies blog. This is fortunate since I suffer severely from Ping List Envy.
Prior to the advent of the Web, I wrote a syndicated humor column that appeared in dozens of newspapers throughout North America. Only complete humility forbids me from telling you that my columns appeared in the Houston Chronicle, St. Petersburg Times, L.A Herald-Examiner, Winnipeg Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Vancouver Sun, and lots of other periodicals that I am much to humble to list.
Oh, I also produced an award-winning satirical comix website called PJ's Comix. This sort of balances out the fact that I am the WORST basketball player in the world.
When I lived in Los Angeles, I wrote comedy material for comedians. Sorry, due to business ethics I can't reveal any of their names (Argus Hamilton).
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/author/pj-gladnick#sthash.LTwD4iTX.dpuf


Your funny... so is this guy. Ever heard of due diligence? You want to be credible in the community then you need to do your due diligence.

Due diligence is an investigation of a business or person prior to signing a contract, or an act with a certain standard of care.
It can be a legal obligation, but the term will more commonly apply to voluntary investigations. A common example of due diligence in various industries is the process through which a potential acquirer evaluates a target company or its assets for anacquisition.[SUP][1][/SUP] The theory behind due diligence holds that performing this type of investigation contributes significantly to informed decision making by enhancing the amount and quality of information available to decision makers and by ensuring that this information is systematically used to deliberate in a reflexive manner on the decision at hand and all its costs, benefits, and risks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence


[h=2]Definition of DUE DILIGENCE[/h]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due diligence
the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property

This is where you and your team is a FAIL - GLG