Tag Archives: wetlands

Florida’s best defense against natural disasters is nature

The highest point in all of Florida is a hill that tops out at 345 feet above sea level, just south of the Alabama border. Much of the rest of the state lies far, far below that — like, 340 feet below — a peninsula jutting into the Caribbean around the same height as the Caribbean. It’s the last place you’d pick to ride out a hurricane, given the choice.

But that’s the choice Florida’s 20 million residents had to reckon with last week, as Hurricane Irma barrelled toward the state, breaking records and flattening towns across the Caribbean. Many expected it to be the costliest disaster in U.S. history — not just because of the Irma’s towering strength.

Florida is seemingly made for disaster. Its sprawling cities have been built up quickly and extensively, at the expense of the ecosystems that act as a natural defense against the worst of a hurricane’s blow. There’s nothing to stop a hurricane like Irma from wreaking havoc wherever it goes, but dunes, wetlands, mangroves, and coral reefs can all play an important role in absorbing some of the destructive energy of a storm. Unfortunately, over the past century, the Sunshine State has lost the majority of all these natural shock absorbers, trading them for arable land and new developments.

As Florida and Texas start to rebuild from the blows dealt by Irma and Harvey, many are weighing how best to fortify vulnerable coastal cities, even as rising sea level brings the threat of flooding closer and closer.

“If you live near the water, the difference between a crashing wave and a slowly moving chop against the walls of your home can be everything,” says Rob Nowicki, a post-doctoral researcher at Florida’s Mote Marine Lab.

Houston’s mayor made a plea for funding to construct a massive sea wall, or “coastal spine,” to protect the region from dangerous storm surges in the future. “We cannot talk about rebuilding” he said, “if we do not build the coastal spine.”

This bunker-building approach to natural disaster — which Nathanael Johnson wrote about in Houston’s struggle to control floodwater — is prone to occasional, catastrophic failure, especially as climate change continues to shift the baseline on our expectations of what a storm can do. The problem is, for Florida, these kinds of concrete-heavy projects aren’t really an option.

“What distinguishes all of South Florida is that it’s got this porous limestone base,” says Ashley Dawson, author of Extreme Cities. No matter what barriers you put between yourself and the sea, water will be able to seep around it. In Miami Beach, king tides regularly flood up through the city’s storm drains, hurricane or no. At the most dire moments before Irma made landfall, Miami — with an average elevation of 6 feet above sea level — was predicted to see as much as 10 feet of storm surge.

When Irma made a last minute swerve inland, pushing the storm surge away from populated coastal cities, much of the predicted damage was avoided. Still, Miami and Jacksonville saw several feet of flooding, power outages, and overwhelmed infrastructure.

Other cities, like Tampa and Sarasota, remain especially vulnerable because they sit on the on the edge of very shallow seas, Dawson says. That means when storms sweep in from deeper ocean they pile up some extremely high, extremely powerful waves ahead of them. Although Tampa only ended up with a couple of feet of storm surge from Irma, initial forecasts were chilling; if the storm had veered a different way, nine to 15 feet of surge might have slammed into the city.

Shoreline habitats like dunes and wetlands can block storm surge, usually the deadliest part of a major hurricane, because they slow down dangerous waves and prevent water from moving as far inland as it would without them.

A recent study in Nature’s online journal calculated that wetlands saved New York $625 million in flooding damage during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, by absorbing both storm surge and rain.

“As a rule of thumb, you can expect larger and more prominent ecosystems to provide more protection,” says Nowicki.

The same swamps and mangroves that would help protect Florida from storms are also what helped keep people and development out of the sparsely populated state until the 20th century.

To make South Florida habitable, the Army Corps of Engineers dug 2,000 miles of canals and levees starting in the 1930s. Beaches were bulwarked, channels were dredged, subdivisions snaked their way into former marshland, and Disney World appeared in a puff of pink smoke (I assume). Along the way, Florida’s natural wetlands receded and its once-stunning coral reefs all but disappeared. Florida is now the third most populous state, behind California and Texas.

In the last few years, Florida Governor Rick Scott has overseen large budget cuts to the department in charge of researching and preserving these ecosystems, enabling the kind of risky coastal development that puts people too close to dangerous storms. And President Donald Trump recently reversed an Obama-era mandate that federally funded construction projects abide by a higher flooding standard to take sea level rise into consideration. All of this leaves Florida in a poor position to weather future storms.

Then there’s the question of Florida’s coral reefs. Offshore reefs can’t stop surge from coming inland the way dunes and wetlands can, but they sap energy from the waves washing over them. Coral cover in the Caribbean, including in Florida, has decreased by 80 percent, leaving low-lying shorelines less protected than ever.

Mote Marine Laboratory, where Robert Nowicki works, is focused on research into how to restore Florida’s degraded reefs by growing and planting new coral colonies onto former reef sites.

“While much of our living coral is gone, the skeletons remain,” Nowicki explains. The structure of a reef, even a dead one, will continue to act as a brake on waves for a while, but over time the skeletons break down and, without live coral to rebuild them, turn into rubble.

This kind of outplanting project is based on the way foresters restore damaged forests by raising trees in nurseries and then distributing them into the wild. It’s labor-intensive and slow, yet Nowicki says it’s the best bet for rebuilding these damaged reefs, and their storm-buffering services, before they’re gone for good.

“Getting living coral back on the old skeletons,” he says, “is a kind of race against time.”

Source: 

Florida’s best defense against natural disasters is nature

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Florida’s best defense against natural disasters is nature

California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke?

The case for saving trees. Deforestation caused by wildfires, development, and agriculture could be a major source of carbon emissions in California. Mark Rightmire/ZUMA Last week California Gov. Jerry Brown made headlines when he announced that his state would pursue the most aggressive greenhouse gas emissions cuts in the nation. The new goal—to reduce emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030—is an interim step meant to help achieve a final goal set by Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, of an 80 percent reduction by 2050. Exact details on how the new target will be achieved haven’t yet been released, but it will likely include a combination of new clean energy mandates and pollution reduction rules for power companies, as well as incentives for electric vehicles. That’s a good place to start: Transportation and the energy sector are the two biggest portions of the state’s carbon footprint, accounting for roughly 36 percent and 21 percent of emissions, respectively. Those sectors are also the two biggest in the nationwide carbon footprint, which is why President Barack Obama’s climate rules have likewise focused on cars and power plants. But there’s another slice of the carbon pie that gets very little airtime, and on which California and the US as a whole fare very differently: Land use. Trees and soil store a lot of carbon, and any time they get destroyed (logged for timber, burned in a fire, plowed for agriculture, paved over for urban development), there are associated carbon emissions. On the national level, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, land use is actually a carbon sink, meaning that the carbon stored by forests and other vegetation outweighs emissions from messing with them. It’s no small piece; land use offsets up to 13 percent of the total US carbon footprint, according to the EPA (through policies such as minimizing soil erosion and limiting the conversion of forests into cropland). New research indicates the trend may be very different in California, contrary to conventional wisdom in the state. Since the passage of the state’s first global warming legislation, A.B. 32 in 2006, California’s carbon targets have been set with the assumption that there would be no net increase in land use emissions. The greenhouse gas inventory published by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state’s air pollution regulatory agency, makes no mention of forestry or land use emissions. But a peer-reviewed study commissioned by CARB and published last month by the National Park Service’s top climate change scientist, Patrick Gonzalez, in conjunction with UC-Berkeley, found that over the last decade land use in California has been a source, not a sink, of carbon emissions. Gonzalez’s research aggregated, for the first time, a vast collection of satellite data and on-the-ground measurements to estimate how much carbon is stored in vegetation in the state. It’s a pretty staggering amount: The state’s 26 national parks store the rough equivalent of the average annual carbon emissions of 7 million Americans. But even more revealing was how that number has shrunk over the last decade, as wildfires, development, and agriculture chip away at forests and other “natural” landscapes. Every year, the disappearance of these carbon stocks emits about as much carbon dioxide as the city of Dallas, says Gonzalez—that’s roughly 5 to 7 percent of California’s total carbon footprint. In other words, Gonzalez says, if California wants to meet its climate targets, the state has a hole that needs to be filled with better land management. Unfortunately, climate change itself is likely to make this situation even worse. Two-thirds of the land use emissions Gonzalez identified was the result of wildfires, meaning that better managing fires—and thereby keeping carbon locked away inside forests—is a key step for reducing the state’s overall emissions. Climate change makes wildfires worse by increasing the severity and frequency of droughts, and as the state’s unprecedented drought enters its fifth year, experts say the wildfire season there is already shaping up to be a “disaster.” Overall, deforestation needs to take on a much more prominent role in the state-wide climate conversation, says Louis Blumberg, director of the Nature Conservancy’s climate program in California. “There’s no way to meet the ambitious targets without dealing with deforestation,” he says. A spokesperson for CARB said that the agency is still skeptical that land use is as much of a problem as the Gonzalez study indicates, and that the study likely underestimates the amount of carbon still stored in forests due to uncertainties in the satellite data. Meanwhile, bureaucratic complications have so far precluded CARB from including forests in its carbon accounting (most of the forests are managed by federal, rather than state, agencies). Still, state officials appear to be increasingly aware of the significance of land use in its climate planning. In his inaugural address in January, Gov. Brown discussed the need to “manage farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon.” Both the Nature Conservancy and National Park Service are now working with state regulators to track the climate impact of deforestation and to develop policies to keep more carbon safely stored away in trees. Deforestation “is a new part of the puzzle,” Blumberg said. “But it’s essential.” This post has been updated. From –  California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke? ; ; ;

Visit site:

California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke?

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, Monterey, ONA, OXO, PUR, Smith's, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Has the Country’s Most Ambitious Climate Goals. Will They Go Up in Smoke?

A Hobbyist Whose Workshop Sits Among the Cypress Trees

While some people golf to unwind, Matt Conn, an environmental consultant, restores his wetland, pouring in hours and money putting his pastime somewhere between hobby and obsession. Read this article: A Hobbyist Whose Workshop Sits Among the Cypress Trees

Source article: 

A Hobbyist Whose Workshop Sits Among the Cypress Trees

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, PUR, Ringer, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Hobbyist Whose Workshop Sits Among the Cypress Trees

Louisiana Agency Sues Dozens of Energy Companies for Damage to Wetlands

The lawsuit argues that the energy companies should be held liable for harm done to the state’s wetlands in their efforts to obtain oil and gas. Read More: Louisiana Agency Sues Dozens of Energy Companies for Damage to Wetlands Related Articles Dot Earth Blog: Jim Hansen Presses the Climate Case for Nuclear Energy Juneau Journal: Alaska Looks for Answers in Glacier’s Summer Flood Surges Climate Change Slowdown is Due to Warming of Deep Oceans, Say Scientists

View post – 

Louisiana Agency Sues Dozens of Energy Companies for Damage to Wetlands

Posted in ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Louisiana Agency Sues Dozens of Energy Companies for Damage to Wetlands