Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Global warming may require higher dams, stilts

Thu Dec 3, 2009 2:46 PM EST
business, science, climate, sci, adapting
Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 5 photos
<p>FILE-  In this file photo taken Monday, June 23, 2008, floodwater from the Mississippi River surrounds a small shed behind a house in Foley, Mo. With the world losing the battle against global warming so far, experts say humans need to do what nature does: Adapt or die. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)</p>

FILE- In this file photo taken Monday, June 23, 2008, floodwater from the Mississippi River surrounds a small shed behind a house in Foley, Mo. With the world losing the battle against global warming so far, experts say humans need to do what nature does: Adapt or die. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)

Advertise | AdChoices

— With the world losing the battle against global warming so far, experts are warning that humans need to follow nature's example: Adapt or die.

That means elevating buildings, making taller and stronger dams and seawalls, rerouting water systems, restricting certain developments, changing farming practices and ultimately moving people, plants and animals out of harm's way.

Adapting to rising seas and higher temperatures is expected to be a big topic at the U.N. climate-change talks in Copenhagen next week, along with the projected cost — hundreds of billions of dollars, much of it going to countries that cannot afford it.

That adaptation will be a major focus is remarkable in itself. Until the past couple of years, experts avoided talking about adjusting to global warming for fear of sounding fatalistic or causing countries to back off efforts to reduce emissions.

"It's something that's been neglected, hasn't been talked about and it's something the world will have to do," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Adaptation is going to be absolutely crucial for some societies."

Some biologists point to how nature has handled the changing climate. The rare Adonis blue butterfly of Britain looked as if it was going to disappear because it couldn't fly far and global warming was making its habitat unbearable. To biologists' surprise, it evolved longer thoraxes and wings, allowing it to fly farther to cooler locales.

"Society needs to be changing as much as wildlife is changing," said University of Texas at Austin biologist Camille Parmesan, an expert on how species change with global warming.

One difficulty is that climate change is happening rapidly.

"Adaptation will be particularly challenging because the rate of change is escalating and is moving outside the range to which society has adapted in the past" when more natural climate changes happened, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist, told Congress on Wednesday.

Cities, states and countries are scrambling to adapt or are at least talking about it and setting aside money for it. Some examples:

— England is strengthening the Thames River flood control barrier at a cost of around half a billion dollars.

— The Netherlands is making its crucial flood control system stronger.

— California is redesigning the gates that move water around the agriculturally vital Sacramento River Delta so that they can work when the sea level rises dramatically there.

— Boston elevated a sewage treatment plant to keep it from being flooded when sea level rises. New York City is looking at similar maneuvers for water plants.

— Chicago has a program to promote rooftop vegetation and reflective roofs that absorb less heat. That could keep the temperature down and ease heat waves.

— Engineers are installing "thermal siphons" along the oil pipeline in Alaska, which is built on permafrost that is thawing, to draw heat away from the ground.

— Researchers are uprooting moisture-loving trees along British Columbia's coastal rainforests and dropping their seedlings in the dry ponderosa pine forests of Idaho, where they are more likely to survive.

— Singapore plans to cut its flood-prone areas in half by 2011 by widening and deepening drains and canals and completing a $226 million dam at the mouth of the city's main river.

— In Thailand, there are large-scale efforts to protect places from rising sea levels. Monks at one temple outside Bangkok had to raise the floor by more than 3 feet.

— Desperately poor Bangladesh is spending more than $50 million on adaptation. It is trying to fend off the sea with flood control and buildings on stilts.

President Barack Obama and Congress are talking about $1.2 billion a year from the U.S. for international climate aid, which includes adaptation. The U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said $10 billion to $12 billion a year is needed from developed countries through 2012 to "kick-start" things. Then it will get even more expensive.

The World Bank estimates adaptation costs will total $75 billion to $100 billion a year over the next 40 years. The International Institute for Environment and Development, a London think tank, says that number is too low.

It may even be $200 billion a year or $300 billion a year, said Chris Hope, a business school professor at the University of Cambridge and part of the IIED study.

Nevertheless, Hope said failing to adapt would be even more expensive — perhaps $6 trillion a year on average over the next 200 years. Adaptation could cut that by about $2 trillion a year, he said.

As much as three-quarters of the spending will be needed in the developing world, experts say.

"Those are not the countries that caused the problem," Hope said. "There's a pretty strong moral case for us giving them assistance for the impacts that we've largely caused."

Sending money from rich countries to poor ones raises questions of who will control the spending and whether it will be wasted or stolen.

As for helping plants and animals, British climate scientist Martin Parry said the world will have to create a triage system to figure out which living things can be saved, which can't and are effectively goners, and which don't need immediate help.

"It's a brutal way to go about things," Parry said.

And what about people?

Some islands, such as the Maldives, and some coastal cities will not be able to survive rising seas no matter what protections are put in place, said Saleemel Huq, a senior fellow at IIED who runs an adaptation center in Bangladesh. In those cases, he said, the world will need "planned relocation" of people and cities.

Parmesan said people are going to have to realize that "some areas are not going to be good enough to live in in the next 100 years."

___

Associated Press writers Michael Casey in Bangkok, Alex Kennedy in Singapore, and Minh Tran in Hanoi, Vietnam, contributed to this report.

___

On the Net

International Institute for Environment and Development report on costs of adaptation: http://tinyurl.com/iiedadapt

United Nations climate change convention adaptation site: http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.php

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration adaptation site: http://tinyurl.com/noaadapt

California adaptation strategy: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/

(This version CORRECTS that Parmesan is at University of Texas, not Texas A&M.)

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Seth Borenstein's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Thailand
  • Public Discussion (13)
jbdaad

With the world losing the battle against global warming so far, experts are warning that humans need to follow nature's example: Adapt or die.

Man vs. Nature: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927

May 1, 2001 ... The Greatest Flood in History. In the winter of 1926-27 the rains were so heavy that on the tributaries of the Mississippi the water had ...

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:13 PM EST
BlumpkinDeleted
screamingeagle_bct

President Barack Obama and Congress are talking about $1.2 billion a year from the U.S. for international climate aid, which includes adaptation. The U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said $10 billion to $12 billion a year is needed from developed countries through 2012 to "kick-start" things. Then it will get even more expensive.

For a farce of a science.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:15 PM EST
Rigbee Dugane

I think it's a great idea! Not that I expect the seas to rise, but, hey, who doesn't love a treehouse? ;-)

  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 4:48 PM EST
Roy Batty

Generally, it sounds kind of dumb to spend money to put everything on "stilts" and plan for migration from low-lying areas where the flooding is expected. If there is going to be a final solution, why not work on that instead of paying for temporary stopgap measures?

As grand a town as New Orleans was, the results of Katrina should have been a lesson in the unstoppable forces of nature. Rebuilding expensive housing behind "newly-improved" levees is hardly the answer, relocating to higher ground makes much more sense.

NO has flooded before and will flood again ... and in adherence to the postulate of this article it will be worse the next time, and worse the time after that. Yet, time and time again we will pour money into its reconstruction. Why not rebuild once, at a higher elevation, call everything else a flood plane, and be done with it?

  • 5 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:29 PM EST
Fifth Horseman

Did anyone ever try not increaseing the population on the planet earth. Since each human leaves a carbon foot print, reduce the humans, reduce the foot prints. Who needs 10 billion people or even 8 billion, really you can not feed your current population, house them, cloth them, how will you do it in the future?

Sorry Pope in Rome, if you want more children then someone should send you a bill to pay for it.

  • 4 votes
Reply#6 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 6:11 PM EST
Sardakaur

MARK MY WORDS: The votaries of the global warming religion are going to look like the biggest idiots since the Catholic Church during the time of Galileo. History will not be kind to the "changelings!" The "changelings" are basing their faith in IPCC data and Al Gore movies, all of which have been discredited! Come to me "changeling!" Present your case and I will devour you with scientific facts! You are such a tasty morsel! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and so far the changelings ain't providing it!

  • 1 vote
Reply#7 - Thu Dec 3, 2009 7:43 PM EST
James-1320398

Climategate. Let's investigate that, and then lets talk about how much we need to worry about spending billions of dollars.

  • 2 votes
Reply#8 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 7:06 AM EST
Roy Batty

Hurm. Investigating Climategate will only prove that some scientists at best fudged and at worst lied about scientific fact. It will hurt a cause, sure, but will do nothing more to add facts to one side of the argument or the other.

I would rather we spend resources getting to the bottom of the issues at hand. Is the climate changing? Does man have a hand in that? The fact that there is disagreement in the scientific community makes me think we need more scientific clarity surrounding this controversy.

  • 2 votes
#8.1 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 1:56 PM EST
Sardakaur

Hurm. So investigating the very IPCC body that the UN uses as its defacto gold standard for climate change wouldn't really matter one way or the other? Are you f**king kidding me? It's the fearmongering that is leading to Copenhagen, which would result in trillions of dollars being spent on something as specious as "global warming." What's the payoff in the end? A reduction of a fraction of a percent of the global average temperature over a hundred years? This is global mass economic suicide for the west! China gets it! India gets it! Russia gets it!

  • 2 votes
#8.2 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 2:19 PM EST
Roy Batty

So investigating the very IPCC body that the UN uses as its defacto gold standard for climate change wouldn't really matter one way or the other?

Sure, if you want. As the focus would be the memos from Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and how much of that research is represented if past IPCC reports and recommendations.

Obviously, the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia can now be considered discredited. However, the IPCC collects data from hundreds of scientists around the world, not just this one school. I still have faith that there are honest researchers out there with valid evidence, and that should not be discarded due to one bad apple.

It's the fearmongering that is leading to Copenhagen, which would result in trillions of dollars being spent on something as specious as "global warming." What's the payoff in the end?

A very good question. Who benefits from this in the end? Big business wants no part of this, they see it as an economic albatross. The common man would end up paying more taxes, so he would not be to happy about it. There is no geopolitical bloc that would benefit from it.

Would some people make money off of global warming initiatives? Sure. But as an overall preposition, it makes no economic sense, particularly in the short term.

Unless, of course, there is a reliable fact-based prediction of climate change that we can do something about. If that is the case, what is seen as "fear mongering" may be entirely justified.

  • 2 votes
#8.3 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 3:14 PM EST
Reply
moes

spend the money on the science to come to a conclusion for once and for all, I get so tired of both sides of the debate just re-packaging their arguments, global warming will kill us all, people who want to put steps in place to correct human induced climate change just want to make money off it, Al gore flys around in business jets and has many large expensive houses hes the hypacrate and the devil, it's a religion, its science, its a hypothis, its fact, global warming is caused by humans, God is just hugging the Earth real tight because he loves us so much and thats why its warming up, the climate is actually cooling, October was colder then average where I live so I'll just base my conclusion on that, waite but my brother lives in another part of the country they had a record heat wave for the same month...wow I'm an idot for thinking one month of below average temps proves or disproves global warming ect...let just get to a conclusion already.

  • 1 vote
Reply#9 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 2:34 PM EST
Sardakaur

We'll get to a verifiable and valid conclusion regarding global warming when the scientific method replaces religious fervor. It's kind of hard to get accurate results when the very climate models themselves are based on false assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out. It's called rigorous honesty and we need a boatload of it!

  • 2 votes
#9.1 - Fri Dec 4, 2009 2:59 PM EST
Reply
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
Newsvine Privacy Statement
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
FUN STUFF:
  • Leaderboard |
  • E-Mail Alerts |
  • Top of the Vine |
  • Newsvine Live |
  • Newsvine Archives |
  • The Greenhouse
COMPANY STUFF:
  • Code of Honor |
  • Company Info |
  • Contact Us |
  • Jobs |
  • User Agreement |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • About our ads
LEGAL STUFF:
  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com