2012 ELECTION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

10 Nov 2012 ELECTION AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The long presidential campaign and the election are behind us. I won’t try to predict what will happen, but I know what must happen: as a nation we must get to work on climate change. The deniers have not gone away; just yesterday a writer in the New York Post had a column debunking the whole concept. In his mind Hurricane Sandy was just another blip on the screen.

The other side of the picture was illuminated in a November 9 New York Times article by John M. Broder in which he quotes a new report by the National Resource Council. The report shows climate change accelerating, and tells how “a warming climate will create more frequent but unpredictable crises in water supplies, food markets, energy supply chains and public health systems.” The CIA and the U.S. military are taking the likelihood of climate change seriously. Shouldn’t we all? And yet the report’s lead author, John D. Steinbruner, cites Republican obstinacy in funding the centers that gather and collate this information as a major obstacle in preparing for future crises. President Obama must engage on the issue of climate change.

It makes no sense to clean up the aftermath of this monster storm without consideration of  “next time.” We can’t lock the seas out. Instead we have to find ways of mitigating the danger. Anna Zivian and Billy Mason have been writing on environmental issues for Telluride Inside… And Out for some time. A recent post by Anna spoke of the advantages of reintroducing oyster beds. They help break up storm surges in tidal areas in addition to filtering the water. Last week the New York Times had a major feature on coastline protection which suggested the same thing.

Rebuilding the infrastructure is a necessary but not sufficient response to the destruction. Make no mistake: the carbon loading in our atmosphere and in our oceans is already there. Our next move is to not make the situation worse. I’m not so naive as to believe that coal and petroleum are going away tomorrow. Relax Somerset, Colorado and West Virginia. Your sons will still be going down into the mines. But the extractive industries should not be growth industries. We need to be doing more with conservation, more with renewables. The Union of Concerned Scientists has shown a way of dramatically reducing our dependence on carbon as fuel.

It has been pointed out that 40% of our energy use in the US is consumed in our built environment. With numbers like that the reconstruction of buildings on the East Coast could have a significant effect on future energy use. We just need to apply technology that is already available. Ground-based geothermal heating and cooling, appropriate ventilation systems, glazing which generates electrical power- all these are possible right now. Why spend the money on outmoded technology that will be vulnerable the next time?

We have an opportunity now to make an investment in the future of our country. Doing so has the added advantage of regaining some of the leadership in renewable energy we have ceded to others. Does that sound like a way to put more of our people back to meaningful work? It does to me.

One last thought: not being able to ski in Telluride would be a major bummer. Now do I have your attention?