WiLD Blog

When it comes to the interests of the Mexican people, the government of Felipe Calderón of PAN is dangerously out of touch with reality. The administration’s blunders have gone beyond the environmental authorities’ turning a blind eye to rampant unsustainable development on Quintana Roo’s coast (link to blog post). Recently approaching an abandonment of some key reforms espoused by the government in the wake of the 1910 revolution.

The administration’s proposal to overhaul Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, is an example. It would allow the monopoly to hire companies to assist it with finding and developing new deposits. This could boost flagging oil production, sales of which account for more than a third of the government’s income. However, as the Wall Street Journal reports, oil companies would likely demand a large fee in order to compensate for the lack of any ownership of deposits that are found, which is prohibited by the Mexican Constitution. The bill would also legalize private ownership of oil refineries. Thus Calderon runs the risk of sparking yet another epidemic of foreign exploitation, a problem that has long plagued Mexico.

Alarmingly, a January 2008 report in Proceso suggests that the administration is not wary of this danger; quite the opposite, in fact. In addition to its push to privatize government-owned industries such as Pemex, the administration has endorsed the growing presence of foreign multinationals, largely American- and Spanish-owned, in many sectors of the economy, often at the expense of Mexican-owned firms. For example, the Spanish multinational Gas Natural is the main distributor of natural gas. The Spanish banks Bancomer and Santander are the first and third largest in the country, respectively. The list goes on and on. The government has awarded major concessions to foreign multinationals: Pemex, for example, relies on Schlumberger Ltd. for many services, and the Spanish firm Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles provided most of the trains in the Mexico City Metro and recently won the contract to build a Suburban Railway between Buenavista and Cuautitlán. This welcome mat comes even as foreign multinationals are expanding their influence in Mexico in a “rapacious” way, according to the nonprofit Observatorio de las Trasnacionales en America Latina.

In addition to being blind to the centuries-old threat of foreign exploitation, the Calderón administration appears to be indifferent about one of the major challenges of the 21st century, global warming. Let’s suppose that Calderón is lucky; that the Pemex bill passes, that oil production reverses its decline, and that the country is able to avoid getting a raw deal from the oil companies. Is oil a resource that Mexico should be investing in and producing more of in the first place, given the potential catastrophic effects of global climate change? The country is no doubt strapped for cash, but there are certainly alternative sources of revenue and more responsible, creative economic solutions available. Why not gradually redefine Pemex’s mission as the development of green energy? Invest in ecotourism? Promote organic agriculture, both for domestic consumption and for export?

-Thomas Holder

A pressing issue that has recently been brought to the attention of city planners is the affects global warming will have on roads, rail and other transportation infrastructure of coastal cities.  For instance, where will San Diego airport be if sea level rises the predicted two feet over the next century?  The relocation plan for the city’s bustling airport will need to be put on the fast track, not only because of the unstable fill it’s built on, but the fact that it will essentially be under water, making it a perfect landing strip for sea planes, but commercial airlines…I think not.  Other airports that will be at risk for tidal inundation are New York’s LaGuardia airport and New Jersey’s Newark airport, some of the most highly trafficked places in our country. 

Presently, more than 60,000 miles of coastal highway in the United States are already subject to intermittent flooding due to rising water levels.  While a sea level increase averaging a foot per fifty years may seem inconsequential, it will exponentially increase the mileage of roads, rails, bridges, and entire cities at risk of flooding.  But man made transportation marvels aren’t the only thing that are at risk of being destroyed by an influx of sea water.  Salt sensitive habitats such as wetlands and fresh water lakes could be irreversibly damaged.  Species which thrive in the fresh or partly brackish water of marshes and other coastal ecosystems could essentially be wiped out, unable to adapt to the increased concentrations of salt. 

Officials at the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA are urging city planners to take into account the threats of global warming.  As the years go by and we begin to experience more fully the effects of rising temperatures and sea level, it is essential that we become a proactive society rather than a reactive one. 

Julie Novak

We are continuously seeing global warming becoming a more pressing issue and sea levels are rising which is believed by many to be in direct correlation with global warming. Recent reports from the U.S. government are warning planners that they should be rethinking threatened roads, rail lines, airports and other infrastructure along the U.S. coasts.
The greatest and most immediate impact of the increased heat, sea levels and precipitation rates is coastal flooding. The EPA has done similar studies that also found natural features such as beaches, wetlands and freshwater supplies also being at risk of destruction.
The new reports note that coastal areas are “thickly populated, economically important and gaining people and investment by the day, even as scientific knowledge of the risks they face increases.” The use of such knowledge by policy makers and planners is clearly insufficient. Planners need to now begin to come up with plans that will reinforce, move or replace on safer ground. “We need to think about it now,” said Dr. Schwartz, a member of the National Academy of Engineering.

The multiagency reports, draft assessments are intended to help policy makers start thinking and planning now. The report offers three different estimates for sea level rise by 2100: about 16 inches a century, a rate it said had already been exceeded about two feet.
As a first step for policy makers, the report said that transportation officials need to realize that climate patterns that prevailed in the past “may no longer be reliable guide for future plans.” Instead they should “incorporate climate change into their plans for capital improvements, maintenance schedules, emergency preparedness and so on.”

Despite this report being developed by the U.S. government, it still provides additional evidence as to why further coastal development throughout the Baja California Peninsula needs to be prevented or at least regulated. Our coastal region and ecosystem is completely connected and will face similar if not the same repercussions if major coastal flooding was to occur. The majority of growth and infrastructure throughout Baja’s coastal regions is very unplanned and developers are able to avoid regulation building standards that they would face in the U.S. If the U.S. government is suggesting the reinforcement or even the relocation of infrastructure that was professionally and comprehensively planned, what is the fate of present and future coastal development throughout the B.C. Peninsula?

 

Cory Keen

The Kyoto protocol bit the dust when President Bush withdrew the US’s signature from it in 2001. In this landmark agreement the EU, US, and Japan had committed themselves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2012(John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 471. ) The US withdrawal was one of the first events in Bush’s legacy of disregard for the environment. It comes as no surprise, perhaps, that, almost eight years into his presidency, the US is ranked last among the G-8 nations (US, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, U.K.) and 39th out of 149 in a new study on environmental performance from scientists at Yale and Columbia Universities.

The chief culprits in the US are greenhouse gas emissions and smog. In the climate change category, the US ranked in the bottom 25 nations, along with India and China. The White House responded with a claim that it is implementing new rules which will address the ozone problem “in the next ten years…in a really big way.” However, they first recognized the problem “five years ago.” Five years? Why have they waited so long to take action? Could it be some sort of delay tactic?

Judging from the state of the union address, it looks like Bush is now concerned about climate change as well:

“And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride. The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more efficient technology.

He has a point. Exempting developing countries such as China and India from emissions reductions is not right, considering their major emissions outputs. However, Bush’s actions, for example, the EPA’s recent opposition to California’s innovative emissions reductions laws show that this is all talk and no action. What remains after sifting through the doublespeak, his verbal acceptance that global warming exists, is very little concern for the environment indeed.

 

Thomas Holder

With rising pressures of global warming, many of the regions that are far from the equator are starting to feel more like deserts. Scientists have measured a rapid recent expansion of desert-like barrenness in the subtropical ocean areas. Here surface water temperatures are also steadily warming, which scientists cannot directly prove a link to human-driven climate change yet most strongly believe there is.

Roughly 20 percent of the globes ocean surface is relatively plankton-free throughout stretches of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In 1998 only about 15 percent was found to be plankton free. A significant drop in the number of plankton in these regions essentially means a loss of many marine species. This change could be and likely is because the hotter surface waters or the changes in winds. Either of these factors could prevent deeper, nutrient-rich water from rising to nourish the plankton.

Some are claiming that this change could be temporary, due to the short span of observation that has been done. However it’s hard to ignore the fact that the change matches a slight but steady warming trend and also matches a pattern that scientists have predicted would occur under human-inflicted global warming. For now, there’s no way to link the atmospheric and oceanic changes, said Jeffrey J. Polovina, an oceanographer with the National Marine Fisheries Service in Honolulu.

Responding to Polovina’s claim, Isaac Held, a climate modeler at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., displayed caution about seeking relationships between the ocean and atmospheric changes around the tropics, and also drawing conclusions about their relationship to global warming. He also states that “it is clear that in the coming few decades we are going to be continually confronted with observations of trends or events of just this type — relatively short records; much larger magnitudes than our models suggest.”

Despite these trends being considered as short records by some, it still seems necessary to treat these trends in oceanic surface temperatures and decrease in plankton as hints for future troubles that human-caused global warming will entail.

Cory Keen

As I sit here in my Imperial Beach seaside office, I almost feel disconnected from the fire crisis in the rest of San Diego County. The wind is blowing slightly out of the west. The sun is out. The clouds of ash in the sky have diminished. For the third day in a row the surf is absolutely perfect — roping south swell barrels with minimal crowd.

But of course the real tragedy lies north and just to the east. More than 500,000 people evacuated, 2,000 structures destroyed, scores of injuries and at least six deaths and close to 300,000 acres in flame from Tecate to Malibu. The crazy and continually changing nature of Santa Ana winds contribute to the inability of firefighters to combat the fires. On Sunday afternoon when the fires first began, the wind must have shifted in Imperial Beach every 10 minutes.

There are shelters and locations for the evacuees although mega traffic jams have impeded quick exits from many areas and the Los Angeles Times  reported that many of the lessons that should have been implemented from the Cedar Fire were ignored. I watched Matt Lauer interview Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on the Today Show, and the governor looked and sounded good and exuded compassion, concern and leadership.

The real story of course is not just this fire, our second mega-fire in four years, but the changing nature of the ecology of our region that results in these man-made tragedies. Accelerated urban growth in fire-prone areas combined with strong Santa Anas and prolonged drought conditions makes San Diego along with Atlanta and New Orleans the poster cities for the negative consequences of global climate change.

At least San Diego understands it has a fire problem. In today’s New York Times, Atlanta authorities are blaming their water crisis due to the worst ever recorded drought, on the water needs of several endangered species.

Research on the causes of southern California fires has been fairly extensive, with the United States Geological Survey publishing research on the historical nature of fires in our region.

Dr. Jon Keeley, a USGS fire researcher and his colleague, C. J. Fotheringham of the University of California, Los Angeles, found that although fire suppression is critical to protect homes, buildings and other structures, fire suppression does not prevent large wildland fires in southern California shrublands because these fires usually occur with powerful Santa Ana winds that blow at high speeds from the desert to the coast. In the present fire, hot Santa Ana winds of over 60 mph greatly increased the intensity and the movement of the fire. Since 1910, chaparral fires have become more frequent as the human population has grown but fire size has not increased. One of the largest fires in Los Angeles County (60,000 acres) occurred in 1878, and the largest fire in Orange County’s history, in 1889, was over half a million acres. The greater financial cost of fires today is most likely the result of constant urban expansion into areas subject to frequent burning.

On Sunday night Scott Pelley of CBS’s 60 Minutes did an excellent job covering the issue of mega-fires and climate change. He interviewed Tom Swetnam a University of Arizona dendrochronologist and expert on fire ecology in the southwest. He also spent time on a fire line in Idaho with Tom Boatner who is chief of fire operations for the federal government.

Swetnam found recent decades have been the hottest in 1,000 years. And recently, he and a team of top climate scientists discovered something else: a dramatic increase in fires high in the mountains, where fires were rare. ” The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole Western U.S. So actually 78 days of average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15 or 20 years,” Swetnam says.

Swetnam says that climate change — global warming — has increased temperatures in the West about one degree and that has caused four times more fires. Swetnam and his colleagues published those findings in the journal “Science,” and the world’s leading researchers on climate change have endorsed their conclusions. “As fires continue to burn, these mega-fires continue to burn, we may see ultimately a majority, maybe more than half of the forest land converting to other forest, other types of ecosystems,” Swetnam says.

“You know, there are a lot of people who don’t believe in climate change,” Pelley remarks. “You won’t find them on the fire line in the American West anymore,” Tom Boatner says. “‘Cause we’ve had climate change beat into us over the last ten or fifteen years. We know what we’re seeing, and we’re dealing with a period of climate, in terms of temperature and humidity and drought that’s different than anything people have seen in our lifetimes.”

Maybe just maybe, Mayor Jerry Sanders and rest of his do-nothing and see-nothing team will become national leaders on the issue of combating climate change. Probably they won’t. It is too bad because Schwarzenegger made it very clear in his interview this morning that climate change has played a major role in increasing the length of the fire season.

With one of the driest years and worst droughts in recorded history in San Diego, now would be the time to change our course in order to take advantage of what Thomas Friedman calls “the power of green.”

– SERGE DEDINA
Originally published in the VoiceofSandiego.org

 

Every industrial boom in history has provided a legacy of environmental damage that takes generations to repair. China is the leading provider of offshore labor in the world and continues to support the global economy by building more coal burning factories each year. The outstanding fact today is that pollution has made cancer the leading cause of death in China. This is stunning when you learn that in China 89,000 people die in road accidents per year, the highest number of automobile related deaths in the world. In 2003 the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning reported 300,000 deaths from ambient air pollution. This number has no doubt risen since then.  500 million people in China lack access to unpolluted drinking water and only 1% of 560 million city residents breathe ‘safe’ air (according to EU standards). As a result of grim statistics, China’s government has banned the publication of data on the subject in order to subdue social unrest.

With the 2008 Olympics rapidly approaching Beijing is scrambling to find a solution to their toxic grey skies. The U.S. has held the gold metal for leading producer of greenhouse gases for decades but the International Energy Agency has now said that China could become the emissions leader by the end of 2007, emitting over 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year.

Coal burning Gu Dian steel plant in the Shanxi Province.

To the rest of the world it appears that China has accepted the effects of pollution as the norm. In many industrial cities there are few days of the year when the sun is visible through the grey haze. In Zhejiang province China’s coastline is so polluted that algal red tides have wiped out all other marine life. These facts paint a picture of a science fiction novel for us but it is a reality for 1.32 billion Chinese living in this moment.

In direct correlation with massive pollution increase is a record breaking growth in the economy. China’s Communist Party would like to believe that economic growth and prosperity will alleviate pollution. In this case pollution and growth go hand in hand.

Heavy industrial and urban growth requires grave amounts of energy. In China almost 100% of industry is fueled by the most readily available and dirtiest form of energy, coal. Today the world becomes smaller to all of us as scientists disclose meteorological findings in global air circulation. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides released by China’s coal powered plants fall as acid rain in Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo, just to mention a few affected areas. In fact, much of Los Angeles particulate pollution originates in China.

Environmental problems get harder and more expensive to address the longer they remain unresolved. Officials in China blame polluted air and water for social unrest. Health care cost’s increase, water shortages jeopardize farmland, and poverty remains high. But the government is beginning to recognize the long-term effects of environmental neglect. Campaigns have begun to close illegal mines and redesign heavily polluting factories. Also more initiatives have been created to develop solar and wind powered energy sources. President Hu Jintao created a project to measure the G.D.P of districts by factoring in the cost of pollution. This would put real pressure on corrupt officials who have been working for their own financial benefit. After the first results the project was thrown out when G.D.P in many provinces was reduced to zero.

Change is mandatory for China and although market based incentives do not exist, a decrease in emissions has been mandated by Communist Party leaders. A goal of 20% less energy to achieve the same economic activity has been set for 2010. In addition, 10% decrease in mercury, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants must be met in the same period. 

It’s true that Britain, the U.S. and Japan all polluted their way to prosperity and only worried about the problems after their economies matured and a middle class demanded better living conditions. China would like to use this as a free pass to pollution. But the New York Times points out that “China is like a teenage smoker with emphysema”. They haven’t reached economic stability and have reached environmental crisis. There is no western model to follow. China’s environmental scientists recognize the problems facing China today by stating “our greatest achievement is our biggest burden”.

Corina Marks.

Common sense tells us that the greater the population, the greater the amount of food needed to support the population. So, when you read an article that says that the China’s annual grain harvest will decrease by 10% by the year 2030 you might not understand the impact unless it comes to your attention that today China’s population is just over 1.3 billion and is expected to grow to 1.5 billion by 2030. This increase in population will demand an additional 100 million tons of food to survive.

Global warming is expected to decrease China’s annual grain harvest by 10% in 2030. Farmers have concluded that warmer weather shortens the growth period of some grains and seeds do not get sufficient time to ripen. Another effect of a warmer climate is increased pests & insects that consume crops as a food source. Also, increased evaporation of ground water will demand more irrigation and put stress on water supplies. All this could be remedied by extending farmland but unfortunately in China agricultural land has been shrinking due to increasing population and urbanization processes. What does a country do when crop production is decreasing and demand for food is increasing? Genetically modified grains have yielded higher harvests but their long-term sustainability is unknown. 

A Chinese farmer carrying water near his drying field in the Yuping District.

The Chinese government has publicized a series of reports in recent months on the impact of global warming and it’s effect on China. Water flow from China’s two largest rivers, the Yangtze and the Yellow, has decreased due to shrinking wetlands at the headwaters. Also global warming has caused the glaciers in northwestern China to melt rapidly. The glacier melting provides a large amount of water (along with flooding) in a small amount of time and without sufficient storage facilities and aqueducts the water will be lost.

Here we have numerous facts that pose serious problems for a country plagued by poverty. Global warming will no doubt affect underdeveloped countries more dramatically than western countries who have more money to devote to malleable infrastructure. Scientists are working hard to find the answers but the outcome remains unknown.

Corina Marks.

Scientists say that global warming may contribute to an increase in cardiovascular diseases in the next 50 years. People have more heart problems in warmer areas and with increases in global temperature, more people could die from heart disease.

When it gets hot, we sweat to cool ourselves off. That opens up blood vessels and increases the heart rate and decreases blood pressure, which can cause many heart problems, particularly for the elderly and those with weakened cardiovascular systems.

Various other problems such as pollution and forest fires are going to contribute to this problem according to scientists. Increases in forest fires (which can be attributed to higher temperatures) in southwest Asia has contributed to a spike in heart problems in the region. In addition, trends such as increased movement into the cities will exacerbate the problem since cities are much warmer regions than rural areas due to pollution from cars and factories. Scientists also believe that the airborne contaminants from pollution can trigger bad reactions in the heart.

Increase in natural catastrophes is not the only thing to worry about regarding global warming.

While there are many uncertainties in how large of a connection there is between global warming and heart disease there is definite reason for concern. Heart disease is also only one of the health problems that will arise with increase global temperatures. Infectious diseases spread by insects such as ticks and mosquitoes will be able to spread further due to larger ranges these insects can occupy.

While most people think of melting glaciers and endangered polar bears when it comes to global warming, it’s important to realize that there are real health effects that would greatly affect us.

Calvin Lee

California Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger and five other regional leaders along with two Canadian provincial leaders pledged to enforce a tough regional cap on carbon emissions. They aim to cut emissions by 15% of the 2005 level in 13 years.

Governor Schwarzenegger has become a leader in the fight against climate change.

While it’s great to hear that some states are stepping up to the challenge the fact remains that nothing like this is being done on a national level. The current administration has been dragging its feet for too long and only now as we stand on the precipice of global climate change are officials beginning to realize the scope of the problem. California officials were more than justified in calling out the administration’s unwillingness to enact a national level program to cut greenhouse gases. Some states see the clear and present danger and are taking the steps to address the problem while some still drag their feet.

Other states need to step up as well and stop catering to business interests. In particular an article in the LA Times notes that “Nevada has advertised itself as a haven for businesses fleeing California” because environmental regulations are stricter in California. While economic values and interests should have a place in state government, the effects of global warming could eclipse whatever monetary gains some states might gain.

The states need to be united in their stance in the fight against global climate change and it’s a fight that’s spreading to other countries as well too. Canada’s participation and the Mexican state of Sonora’s consideration to join the effort speaks volumes on how global warming is truly a global problem and it requires, as the Governator aptly put it, global solutions.

Besides, we are part of the United States of America. It’s about time we doing some uniting to address global warming.

Calvin Lee