23/01/2017

From Asia To Outback Australia, Farmers Are On The Climate Change Frontline

The Guardian - 

Not a day goes by that I don’t stand in awe at under-resourced and vulnerable farmers committed to moving mountains despite the odds against them
Australian farmer Anika Molesworth working with farmers in Cambodia on sustainable farming practices. Photograph: CARDI (Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute)
For those standing on the precipice of life the impacts of climate change are an ever present reality. The rural poor in Southeast Asia are some of the most vulnerable to climate extremes and seasonal vagaries. For these farmers, many who live at subsistence level and survive on less that $1US a day, life is a high-wire act with no safety net.
One stroke of bad luck – a drought, flood or pest outbreak – and they tumble further into hardship. Yet, here in Cambodia I work at an agricultural research centre with the most humbling and inspiring people. Not a day goes by that I don’t stand in awe at an under-resourced team committed to moving mountains despite the odds lined up against them.
It perhaps follows that those who stare so closely at the face of climate change talk only of pertinent matters. The health of their family and community, having enough food to feed them, the quality of their water sources and the condition of their natural environment.
In remote villages where farmers have never had the opportunity of formal education and remain largely cut off from the developed world, you will meet the most thoughtful, funny and stimulating people. What strikes me most forcibly however, is their descriptions of the new insects eating their crops that they had never seen before, or their knowledge of how the dry season is extending each year with exhausting heat sucking their soils dry. They know exactly how their climate – and their world – is changing.
Just over 6,000 kms away is my family’s farm. Located in far western NSW, Broken Hill is known for mining, good pub meals and drag queens. My family purchased our outback sheep station in the year 2000. The start of the decade long Millennium Drought. Tipped head first into volatility of agriculture, it was immediately apparent how interconnected individual components of a farming system are. As we all know, when the rain doesn’t come, less vegetation grows, livestock are sold at reduced weights, crop yields are not achieved, less money in the farmer’s pocket means off-farm employment is sought, and shops in rural towns close.
The far west is an ancient environment. A challenging environment. And an extremely fragile one. Acacias stunted and twisted by the harsh scorch of the desert offer the cool reprieve of shade to lonely sheep. I find this landscape hauntingly beautiful, and impossible not to fall in love with.
Yet, it is projected that this region will become hotter, drier and experience more frequent dust storms that choke and darken the sky. Species that evolved over millennia face uncertain futures, and the guardians of these precious habitats are concerned. The viability of farming in this region hangs on tenterhooks, and as someone who dreams of taking on the family farm one day – that’s terribly sobering for me.
Australian farmer Anika Molesworth
Farmers live and work so closely with the environment. When they speak about the natural world – gnarled River Red gums on the creek bank or the wedgetail eagle sentry that perches near the front gate – it is with easy intimacy, as if talking about an old friend. Recent studies have found nine in 10 farmers are concerned about damage to the climate. They are experiencing rapid alteration to their land and regional weather patterns. Two-thirds of farmers say they have observed changes in rainfall patterns in their life-time or time of farming.
One of the defining challenges of our time is meeting the needs of a growing global population, amidst increasingly challenging climatic conditions whilst reducing our environmental footprint.
How can we feed everyone without harming the planet we are intending to sustain? It is by no means an easy task. And we cannot tackle the challenges of the 21st century and beyond with 20th century thinking and technology. We need to continually seek new information, a better understanding of how our world works, and improve our human interaction with it.
Continued research, development and extension is essential. Support and investment in agricultural and environmental sciences is pivotal. Farmers need new and innovative pathways to be identified and the support structures put in place to ensure they are made accessible and affordable, so they can be adopted on a large scale. This means good science and access to information, encouraging creative and critical perspectives to disrupt the status quo, financial backing and investment security.
With collaboration and coordination among policy makers, industry, consumers, farmers, researchers and supporting agencies we will be able to find and implement practical solutions to the threats climate change presents the agricultural industry.
We do not have the luxury of time for merry-go-round debate or the patience for political apathy. Farmers around the world – from subsistence rice farmers in Southeast Asia to arid outback sheep graziers in Australia – are feeling the heat.
Despite the diversity of this industry and medley of cultures and technologies shaped by unique environments, there is commonality in the challenges facing farmers exposed to climate change and plentiful opportunity that can be reaped if the right platforms are put in place. The other similarity I see between farmers around the world – is the glint in their eyes that they are not about to give up.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

22/01/2017

Australia’s Conservative Government Fiddles On Climate Policy While The Country Burns

The Guardian - 

When Malcolm Turnbull deposed Tony Abbott as prime minister, serious action on global warming was hoped for – but almost nothing has changed
Malcolm Turnbull is given a jersey by Brisbane Heat cricket captain Kirby Short. The PM says Australia will ‘meet and beat’ carbon emissions targets. Photograph: David Kapernick/AAP
Australia’s January news has been full of official reports of record-breaking extreme weather devastating our ecosystems on land and in the sea and government ministers suggesting we build new coal-fired power stations, provide billion-dollar subsidised loans to rail lines for new coal mega-mines, increase coal exports to reduce temperature rises and reduce our ambitions for renewable power.
The disconnect is glaring but perhaps dimmed in the eyes of some readers because Australian politicians have been dissembling on climate change for decades, pretending it will be possible to do what we must without any impact on our position as the world’s largest coal exporter or our domestic reliance on brown coal-fired power, or without incurring any costs.
The Coalition government – which boasts as one of its proudest achievements the repeal of the former government’s emissions trading scheme – has a particular need for doublespeak.
Having run two election campaigns on the pledge of “axing the tax” with hyperbolic assertions that it would strangle the economy and impoverish households, it found it convenient to claim the discovery of the climate policy equivalent of a free lunch.
The Coalition has never resolved the bitter internal divisions with conservative climate doubters that saw Malcolm Turnbull overthrown as leader in 2009 owing to his support for carbon pricing, to be replaced by Tony Abbott, who had declared the settled science of climate change to be “crap” and believed coal was “good for humanity”.
In September 2015 Turnbull overthrew Abbott but, since then, climate change has barely rated a mention and the new prime minister has surprised many by apparently falling into line with the mineral industry’s argument that our coal exports are really doing the world a big favour.
Trump’s victory has emboldened the doubters – the resources minister, Matt Canavan, for example, enthused that “Donald Trump is good for fossil fuels, good for steel and good for Australia”.
But it has also coincided with more conflicting responses from the government.
Less than a day after the US election, the Turnbull government ratified the Paris agreement – the same agreement the new US president has vowed to “tear up” and that calls for zero net emissions by the second half of the century – describing it was a “watershed … that has galvanised global action”.
But then it promptly abandoned a domestic policy idea that represented its last credible chance of meeting its promised targets or galvanising any real action here.
With the world recording its third year in a row of record temperatures and the Great Barrier Reef bleaching, any objective assessment would suggest the time for prevarication and obfuscation is long since past.
We’ll soon see. On 1 February, in his first major speech for the year, Turnbull will stand before the National Press Club to explain his policy on energy and the greenhouse gases it produces.
Experts from business, industry and the environment movement are wondering what he can possibly say.
For years the former environment minister had privately reassured stakeholders that a 2017 review would quietly morph the Direct Action policy into a so-called emissions intensity trading scheme and business and environment groups alike were clinging to those promises as the last hope for a credible climate policy and an end to the investment drought caused by years of mindless “climate wars” and policy uncertainty.
But late last year, despite advice that such a scheme would lead to lower household power prices, despite having bipartisan support and just hours after the current environment minister said the review would look at it, the government ruled it out.
Turnbull will announce new vehicle emissions standards and a new energy efficiency scheme. He and his office are looking at “technological solutions” – bright new ideas in solar thermal, or battery or carbon storage technology that might fill the policy void. But all those technologies need government policies to provide investors with incentives and certainty, and without actually confronting the climate doubters no one can imagine what that policy might be.
Turnbull will also reassure voters, who repeatedly tell pollsters they are worried about global warming, that Australia will “meet and beat” its international targets, as it has in the past.
But again complexity hides the underwhelming truth.
Australia got not one but two special deals in the original Kyoto protocol – an allowance to increase its emissions in absolute terms – unlike almost all other developed countries, on account of our reliance on fossil fuels – and another special deal so particular to our circumstances it was called “the Australia clause”. It allowed the inclusion of land-use changes in emission calculations in a way that meant restrictions that had already been imposed on large-scale land clearing – especially in Queensland – allowed Australia to rest assured it had achieved its new target before it even signed up to it. The deal was so good we did “meet and beat” the target and, unlike almost all other developed countries, we are using that overshoot to help us also meet our very low 2020 target.
But now state governments are overturning land-clearing restrictions and the federal government is arguing that states should abandon their regional renewable energy targets, which were only ever necessary because the federal scheme is effectively winding down.
In short, we have done very little and we have no effective federal policies to shift to a low emissions economy, and everyone knows it.
Trump gives the Australian sceptics the chance to run the same old arguments – if the US does nothing, then why should we? His victory has increased the prospect that some of them could split to form a new conservative party.
The energy market remains so complex that all kinds of wild claims can be made to justify a do-nothing end. And international climate negotiations remain so byzantine that countries can claim hero status while doing very little.
But the reality of global warming cannot be disguised by political obfuscation and the Turnbull government has run out of excuses. It has to have an honest internal reckoning – is it serious about climate policy or does it run with the sceptics? Trump’s election makes it more urgent that we finally have an honest debate.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Donald Trump Inauguration: White House Website Removes Obama Climate Change Initiatives

Fairfax - Ashley Parker*

Just moments after President Donald Trump took the oath of office on Friday, the official White House website was transformed to remove all traces of former president Barack Obama's climate change initiatives and to reinforce border protection policies.
The new-look website carried a set of policy pledges that offered the broad contours of the Trump administration's top priorities. It's a list that includes fierce support for law enforcement bordering on vigilantism, an immediate elimination of the White House's policy page on climate change and the notable absence of any directives involving President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
Donald Trump arrives for his inauguration. Photo: AP
"Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter," reads the law and order section, which calls for "more law enforcement" and "more effective policing."
"Our job is to make life more comfortable for parents who want their kids to be able to walk the streets safely. Or the senior citizen waiting for a bus. Or the young child walking home from school."
The issues page of Mr Trump's White House offers no new plans or policies but rather a rehash of many of his most prominent campaign promises – a signal to the nation that Mr Trump, more pragmatic than ideological, plans to implement at least the key guideposts of his campaign vision.
His policies include plans to both withdraw from and renegotiate major trade deals, grow the nation's military and increase cyber-security capabilities, build a wall at the nation's southern border and deport undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes.
Strikingly absent from the six issues the website highlights – and from his first speech as president – is anything on repealing or replacing Obamacare. The issue was a defining feature of his campaign, and aides have signalled he may begin the process of undoing the law in a series of executive actions he hopes to sign in the early days of his presidency.
Similarly, the climate change web page that existed under Mr Obama was immediately scrubbed, with no mention of climate change under Mr Trump's energy plan.
First lady Melania Trump, President Donald Trump, Vice-President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen Pence, farewell the Obamas. Photo: AP
Instead, he vowed to eliminate "harmful and unnecessary policies" such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States rule.
The first represents a variety of efforts Mr Obama pursued to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions while the second is a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to protect not only the largest waterways but smaller tributaries that others believe should fall under the jurisdiction of states rather than the federal government.
Mr Trump plans to boost the oil and gas industries to help fund his infrastructure initiatives.
The Trump White House website does not devote a separate section to immigration, another central tenant of his candidacy, though it mentions immigration under the law enforcement section. Despite rumours among the immigration advocacy community that one of Mr Trump's initial executive actions could be to revoke Mr Obama's protections for the so-called 'Dreamers', those undocumented immigrants brought to the country as young children, his website so far focuses only on big-picture enforcement and security goals.
Former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle leave Washington. Photo: AP
"He is dedicated to enforcing our border laws, ending sanctuary cities, and stemming the tide of lawlessness associated with illegal immigration," reads part on the immigration section.
The new administration's language echoes Trump's tough rhetoric on the campaign trail, including his promises to strengthen the law enforcement community, crack down on he views as a broad range of trade violations, and potentially forge alliances with countries long considered dangerous rivals, like Russia.
"Finally, in pursuing a foreign policy based on American interests, we will embrace diplomacy," reads part of Trump's policy vision. "The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies."
Also shortly after the official transition, the Trump administration overturned a mortgage fee cut under a government program that's popular with first-time home buyers and low-income borrowers.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development said it would cancel a reduction announced last week while Mr Obama was still in office.
The Federal Housing Administration had planned to cut its annual fee for most borrowers by a quarter of a percentage point to 0.60 per cent, effective on January 27.

*The Washington Post

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

President Trump Threatens To Undermine Key Measure Of Climate Policy Success

The Conversation - 

The social cost of carbon estimates the damage caused by a tonne of carbon dioxide. Coal image from www.shutterstock.com
One of the key measures President Barack Obama used to develop climate policy could be under threat under President Donald Trump. The “social cost of carbon”, a dollar measure of how much damage is inflicted by a tonne of carbon dioxide, underpins many US and other energy-related regulations (and in the UK too, for example).
The latest estimates from William Nordhaus, one of the best-known economists dealing with climate change issues (together with Nicholas Stern), put the social cost of carbon in 2015 at a baseline of US$31.20. This rises over time as the impacts of climate change worsen.
Conversely, the social cost of carbon is also the “government’s best estimate of how much society gains over the long haul” by reducing CO₂ emissions.
Nordhaus uses an economic model known as the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (or DICE) model, which he developed in the 1990s. I understand it’s one of the leading models for examining the effects of climate change on the economy. Other researchers have adapted and modified DICE to examine issues associated with the economics of climate change.
Social costs of carbon estimates have been – and remain – helpful for assessing the climate impacts of carbon dioxide emission changes, but perhaps not for the incoming Trump administration in the US.

‘More bad news than good news’
First, though, let’s consider the update to Nordhaus’ DICE model. He finds that the results strengthen earlier ones, which indicate “the high likelihood of rapid warming and major damages if policies continue along the unrestrained path” – his view of current policy settings. He revises upwards his estimate of the social cost of carbon by about 50% on the last modelling.
Further, Nordhaus argues that the 2°C “safe” limit set under the Paris Agreement seems to be “infeasible” even with reasonably accessible technologies. This is because of the inertia of the climate system, rapid projected economic growth in the near term, and revisions to the model.
His view is that a 2.5°C limit is “technically feasible” but that “extreme virtually universal global policy measures” would be required. By implication, such measures could refer to geo-engineering and, in particular, removing CO₂ from the atmosphere.
Nordhaus also notes:
Of the six largest countries or regions, only the EU has implemented national climate policies, and the policies of the EU today are very modest. Moreover, from the perspective of political economy in different countries as of December 2016, the prospects of strong policy measures appear to be dimming rather than brightening.
As a result of the DICE modelling, Nordhaus states that there is more bad news than good news and that the need for effective climate change policies is “more and not less pressing”.
His results relate to a world without climate policies, which, as he says, “is reasonably accurate for virtually the entire globe today. The results show rapidly rising accumulation of CO₂, temperatures changes, and damages.”

An end to the use of the social cost of carbon?
As well as the definition earlier of that cost, it could also be described as a government’s best estimate “of how much society gains over the long haul by cutting each tonne” of CO₂ emissions.
While the Obama administration relied on the DICE model (and others) in arriving at a social cost of carbon – such cost is already important in the formation of 79 federal regulations – it appears that the incoming Trump administration might modify or end this use.
It has been argued – by Harvard’s Cass Sunstein and the University of Chicago’s Michael Greenstone – that such action would defy law, science and economics. It is probably unlikely that use of the social cost of carbon would be done away with completely (lowering the operative number might be more likely), although Greenstone and Sunstein do contemplate it.
Sunstein and Greenstone conclude that, without it, federal regulations would have no quantifiable benefits. And that would have implications for emission reductions and assessing progress on dealing with climate change.
And Nordhaus concludes:
The future is highly uncertain for virtually all variables, particularly economic variables such as future emissions, damages, and the social cost of carbon.
That’s definitely the case for climate change policy and action in the US following the election of Donald Trump. For President Trump’s supporters, it appears that “turning back the clock is the most important thing the president-elect can do to help businesses succeed”.
And the president may well do that. He has argued for an increase in coal use and suggested that, under his administration, the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

21/01/2017

Sea Level Rise

National Geographic

Ocean levels are getting higher. Why is this happening, and what can we do to stem the tide?
Families in Kiribati, especially those new to the island nation, are often forced to live in marginal areas, where flooding from high tides is increasing. Photograph by Kennedy Warne
Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years. Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat. The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change:
  • Thermal Expansion:
    When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space.
  • Melting Glaciers and Polar Ice Caps:
    Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. In the winter, snows, primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in the ratio of runoff to ocean evaporation, causing sea levels to rise.
  • Ice Loss from Greenland and West Antarctica:
    As with the glaciers and ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off.
Superstorm Sandy narrowed New Jersey's beaches by more than 30 feet on average. At Seaside Heights it swept away the pier under the roller coaster. Photograph by Stephen Wilkes
Consequences
When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, wetland flooding, aquifer and agricultural soil contamination, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants.
When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path. In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely.
Meltwater gushes from an ice cap on the island of Nordaustlandet, in Norway's Svalbard archipelago. Photograph by Paul Nicklen, National Geographic Creative
How High Will It Go?
Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and is likely to accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the degree to which they will rise is an inexact science. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we can expect the oceans to rise between 11 and 38 inches (28 to 98 centimeters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, place sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London.
Montana A deluge falls from the core of a thunderstorm near Glasgow in July 2010. "I felt like if you could stand in the middle and look up, you'd see straight into the heavens," says photographer Sean Heavey. Panorama composed of four images; Sean R. Heavey, Barcroft Media/Landov

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

Climate Change To Shift Global Pattern Of Mild Weather

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

New research shows the global average of mild weather days will drop, with dramatic declines for some, increases for others
As scientists work to predict how climate change may affect hurricanes, droughts, floods, blizzards and other severe weather, there’s one area that’s been overlooked: mild weather. But no more.
NOAA and Princeton University scientists have produced the first global analysis of how climate change may affect the frequency and location of mild weather – days that are perfect for an outdoor wedding, baseball, fishing, boating, hiking or a picnic. Scientists defined “mild” weather as temperatures between 64 and 86 degrees F, with less than a half inch of rain and dew points below 68 degrees F, indicative of low humidity.
Knowing the general pattern for mild weather over the next decades is also economically valuable to a wide range of businesses and industries. Travel, tourism, construction, transportation, agriculture, and outdoor recreation all benefit from factoring weather patterns into their plans.

Tropics to lose milder days
The new research, published in the journal Climatic Change, projects that globally the number of mild days will decrease by 10, or 13 percent, by the end of the century because of climate warming from the buildup of human-caused greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The current global average of 74 mild days a year will drop by four days by 2035 and 10 days by 2081 to 2100. But this global average decrease masks more dramatic decreases in store for some areas and increases in mild days in other regions.
“Extreme weather is difficult to relate to because it may happen only once in your lifetime,” said first author Karin van der Wiel, a Princeton postdoctoral researcher at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) located on the university’s Forrestal Campus. “We took a different approach here and studied a positive meteorological concept, weather that occurs regularly, and that’s easier to relate to.”  
Scientists predict the largest decreases in mild weather will happen in tropical regions because of rising heat and humidity. The hardest-hit areas are expected to be in Africa, Asia and Latin America, where some regions could see 15 to 50 fewer days of mild weather a year by the end of the century. These are also areas where NOAA and partner research shows economic damages due to climate change. The loss of mild weather days, especially during summer, when they can serve to break up extended heatwaves, also could significantly affect public health.

Parts of U.S., Canada, northern Europe to gain milder days
People living in the mid-latitudes, which include much of the United States, as well as many mountainous areas around the world, will gain mild weather days on average, the new study found. The biggest winners will include communities along the border with Canada in the Northeast, Midwest and Northwest, as well as many parts of Canada.
Other areas projected to gain as much as 10 to 15 days more annually of mild weather by the end of the 21st century include parts of England and northern Europe, and Patagonia in extreme southern South America. In some of these areas, mild weather will drop during increasingly hot and humid summers but become more plentiful in fall, winter and spring as winters warm and the shoulder seasons last longer.
This map shows the change in the annual number of mild days across the globe from the period of 1986-2005 to the period from 2081-2100. Areas of blue are expected to experience an increase in mild days while areas of brown are expected to see a decline in those days. (Van der Wiel/ NOAA/ Princeton)
“We believe improving the public understanding of how climate change will affect something as important as mild weather is an area ripe for more research and more focused studies,” said Sarah Kapnick, a physical scientist at NOAA’s GFDL and co-author. “Predicting changes in mild weather is not only important to business and industry, but can also contribute to research on the future of physical and mental health, leisure and urban planning.”
Scientists used high-resolution climate models to investigate the changing patterns of mild weather globally by examining the effect over time of increased warming from the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. The work was made possible by decades of Earth system and model development at NOAA’s GFDL and by improvements made to NOAA’s research supercomputing capability, including access to two high performance supercomputers, Gaea and Theia, named after figures in Greek mythology.

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:

World's First Custom-Built Floating City To Rise Off French Polynesian Waters

ABC News - Stephanie Boltje

A floating future - The Seasteading Institute describes its concept as permanent, innovative communities floating at sea. (The Seasteading Institute)
Key points
  • The Seasteading Institute has been searching for a location for five years
  • The French Polynesian pilot project will be built in sheltered waters
  • Floating cities could be a solution to rising sea levels around the Pacific
The world's first floating city could be constructed off the waters of French Polynesia after the Government signed an agreement with a United States company in San Francisco at the weekend.
The Seasteading Institute has been researching the potential for what it describes as permanent, innovative communities floating at sea for the past five years.
After signing a memorandum of understanding with the French Polynesian Government, it is hopeful construction can start by 2019.
The institute's executive director, Randolph Hencken, told Pacific Beat finding a host nation was a significant milestone.
He said the next steps involved economic and environmental impact studies as well as legal investigations to figure out the special governing framework the institute believes is crucial to the ongoing success of its floating communities.
French Polynesia's ministerial representative Jean-Christophe Bouissou (R) signs off on the floating island project with Randolph Hencken from The Seasteading Institute. (Presidence de la Polynesie francaise.)
The Seasteading Institute was founded by Wayne Gramlich and Patri Friedman in 2008 to establish autonomous, mobile communities on seaborne platforms operating in international waters.
The French Polynesian prototype will not be in international waters but the institute still hopes its vision can be incorporated.
Mr Hencken said the detail of political autonomy needed to be negotiated and considered under the sovereignty of French Polynesia and France, of which French Polynesia is a territory.
"What we're interested in is societal choice and having a location where we can try things that haven't been tried before," Mr Hencken said.
"I don't think it will be that dramatically radical in the first renditions.
"But I imagine it has the opportunity to have different ways of voting for how things are run off the island instead of using the same systems that our great great-grandparents have given us that seem to have failed in so many first-world nations."
Mr Hencken said a former minister from the Government in Papeete approached his company last year and after a site inspection, the azure seas of the Pacific appealed for several reasons.
"We were looking for sheltered waters — we don't want to be out in the open ocean — it's technologically possible but economically outrageous to afford," he said.
"If we can be behind a reef break, then we can design floating platforms that are sufficient for those waters at an affordable cost."
Other attractions included fewer cyclones, a major airport in Tahiti and other aspects of modern life, like restaurants.
"We don't have to start from scratch as this is a pilot project," he said.
"They also have very stable institutions so we're able to work with a government that wants us there, that we have respect for and they have respect for us."
One of the challenges in the lead-up will be to prove the economic benefit to the Government.
"We are confident there will be both a direct and an indirect benefit for them economically," Mr Hencken said.
"They are a tourist-based economy and they're excited to bring us in because we are a technology-based idea.
"The first islands are going to be a pilot project and there will just be many dozens [of people] to get started with and then … we grow and are more successful, we will hopefully see hundreds and thousands of people living there.
"What excites me about the project is a location where people are going to create a community based on interests on floating islands rather than have a community because they happen to be born there and this is their ethnicity."

Beverley O'Connor speaks to The Seasteading Institute's Ashley Blake (The World)

The agreement with the French Polynesian Government is for the studies to be completed this year and incorporated into draft legislation. If passed by the end of 2018, construction can start in the next year.

A solution to the Pacific's rising sea levels
The Seasteading Institute believes their vision for "sustainable, floating islands and innovative islands" will prove to be part of the solution to rising sea levels.
"So much of the world — places like Kiribati and many of the islands of French Polynesia — are threatened by rising sea levels," Mr Hencken said.
"We are planning to spin off a new industry of floating islands that will allow people to stay tethered to their sovereignty as opposed to having to flee to other countries.
"That's certainly why the Tahitians are interested in us. They want the environmental resiliency as well as the economic opportunities."

Links
Posted by at No comments :
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative