15/04/2020

(US) Climate Change Turns The Tide On Waterfront Living

Washington Post - Jim Morrison

Rising seas and worsening flooding are forcing many communities to plan their retreat from the coasts



William Stiles of the group Wetlands Watch inspects a collapsed water retaining wall in Norfolk, Va. (Photos by Parker Michels-Boyce for The Washington Post)

On Richmond Crescent in Norfolk, Va., more than a dozen homes rise in varying heights, forming a streetscape bar graph tracing the past decade’s increasing threat of flooding from an inlet of the Lafayette River. A green house with a prominent front porch is a modest four feet off the ground. Two doors down, a 70-year-old cottage has been newly raised 11 feet on blocks, at a cost of $154,000, nearly all of it federal and state money. On the corner, a one-story white-brick ranch looms about seven feet up, matching the height of the sage-colored brick house next door. A few homes still on ground level hunker among the high and dry houses looking down their proverbial noses at them.George Homewood, Norfolk’s planning director, has chosen the city’s affluent Larchmont neighborhood for our walking tour on this unseasonably warm December day.

He pauses in the middle of Richmond Crescent, where repeated tidal flooding has cracked and buckled the asphalt, and wetlands grasses fringe the street. Nodding toward a new house that towers 12 feet above sea level, he poses the hard questions that cities and counties are only beginning to acknowledge as waters along the U.S. coasts continue their inevitable invasion. Will the city be better off if people live in that house for another 30 to 50 years but are unable to get in or out during high tides or lingering storms? How long, he asks, does the city maintain the street? Or keep the storm-water and sewer systems operating? What happens years from now, when emergency services can’t get to these homes because the street has flooded? “At some point, the investment in infrastructure can’t be sustained,” he says. “That’s the bottom line.”

Hurricanes get the headlines, but on this street, it will be the repeated jabs of flooding day after day from climate change, with its rising tides and increasingly stronger storms, that will force the city to make tough choices. By 2040, projections by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science show, the river will overflow its banks and flood this street twice daily during high tides. Norfolk plans to protect the city with $1.8 billion in storm-surge barriers and flood walls, but those projects — if built — won’t stop the rising tides in Larchmont. The water will come. This is where Norfolk will eventually begin its retreat.The city doesn’t use that politically explosive term, the Voldemort of climate adaptation. Planners here and elsewhere refer to it as the “r-word.”

They’re happy to talk about the other r-word — resilience, which includes projects like sea walls, retention ponds, rebuilding wetlands and improved storm-water capacity. Retreat signals surrender, while resilience screams reassurance: Don’t worry. Stay. We’ll protect you. That medicine goes down easier. It has been embraced by dozens of cities and states that have added resilience officers. Norfolk’s Vision 2100 plan, widely praised for envisioning a city withdrawing from some neighborhoods by making only “judicious” investments in protecting homes from rising waters, uses the word “retreat” only once, and then to say that the city will not retreat but will emphasize “living with the water.”

The idea — for now — is not to force residents to abandon neighborhoods like Larchmont, but to have them gradually decide to leave as the inconvenience of staying grows. “I would like to abdicate as much to the marketplace as possible so that we’re not actually making the hard decisions that impact people, but we’re finding ways to encourage people to make smart decisions for themselves,” Homewood says. “We’re not saying that happens on a dime, but over time as that happens with more and more property, then we begin to have that managed retreat.”

At its core, managed retreat is about getting people to leave a place called home. Though the coronavirus pandemic is the focus of our anxiety today, climate change is continuing unabated in the meantime. As it advances, bringing rising sea levels, increasingly devastating storms and more disastrous flooding, communities across the nation will be contending with the question confronting Norfolk: How do you unravel the allure of living on the waterfront?

In recent decades, more and more Americans have moved to the coasts. Managing the inevitable retreat is studded with legal, financial and political sinkholes, a puzzle that will take decades to piece together. And the time to start doing that, experts say, is now. “Relocation is so difficult that you need to start planning for it long in advance,” says A.R. Siders of the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware’s Biden School of Public Policy and Administration. “We need to start learning how to do this.”

Above from left: Joe and Sarah Kennedy in front of their home on Richmond Crescent in Norfolk; a lot for sale on the same street, which floods.

Norfolk’s small steps prodding people to move out of harm’s way are rare among local governments. Too rare, say researchers and climate crisis advocates. Rather than discussing retreat, most threatened communities are studying and, in some cases, building billion-dollar projects to protect against coming encroachments. The Center for Climate Integrity, an environmental advocacy group, last year issued a study concluding that by 2040, building sea walls for U.S. coastal cities with more than 25,000 residents will require at least $42 billion. Expand that to include communities of fewer than 25,000 and the cost skyrockets to $400 billion. That’s nearly the price of building the 47,000 miles of the interstate highway system, which took four decades and cost more than $500 billion in today’s dollars.

Researchers say those numbers are conservative because they consider only sea walls, not other ways to mitigate flood risk, including buying out homeowners and improving storm-water systems.There won’t be enough money to protect every endangered place. The Army Corps of Engineers, for instance, has a $98 billion backlog of authorized construction projects yet receives annual construction appropriations of only about $2 billion, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Andy Keeler, the head of public policy at the Coastal Studies Institute and an economics professor at East Carolina University, worries that resilience efforts create a negative spiral of people believing their risks are lower than they are and remaining in threatened areas they should be abandoning. This means that their property values continue to rise, which reinforces economic and political arguments for spending more money on resilience efforts.

 “How do we make the transition from protecting ourselves to leaving?” asks Keeler. “The big question is time. When is the time to stop investing in protection and start shifting the resources over to people leaving?”Ann Phillips, a retired rear admiral who is the special assistant for coastal adaptation and protection for Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, says that cities and counties have legitimate concerns about discussing retreat. They fear losing some of their tax base. They don’t want to scare away business development. She is concerned about the social justice aspects of managed retreat. Homeowners in a wealthy neighborhood like Larchmont have more resources and options than those in Ingleside, a mixed-income neighborhood that is also threatened but hasn’t been the beneficiary of home-raising funds. As flooding becomes more frequent in such places, the population transitions from homeowners to renters and the neighborhood deteriorates. “The challenge is, how do you get these people options before you get to the collapse?”

Phillips asks as we take a morning walk through Ingleside. She is working on a master plan for Virginia that defines the threat and deals with the various challenges. What happens, for instance, to struggling rural counties that won’t have the means to either armor in place or leave? Finding a way to create incentives for the watermen and farmers and others who have lived on their land for centuries will be a challenge. “As a nation, we should be looking at this risk to our future and evaluating it from a national perspective, and I don’t see that happening,” Phillips says, echoing others I interviewed.Part of the reason that conversation hasn’t happened is the magnitude and complexity of the potential retreat in the United States. More than 126 million people, about 40 percent of the U.S. population, live in coastal counties that produce more than $8.3 trillion in goods and services, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A 2019 study found that sea-level rise of six feet by 2100 could displace 13 million people, including more than 2.5 million refugees from Miami alone. Another study examining maps of flooding along rivers concluded that 41 million Americans live within the reach of a 100-year-flood with a potential for $1.2 trillion worth of damage. “There is no local, state or federal managed retreat plan or strategy,” says Rob Moore, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s just a theoretical construct. The reality facing communities is that we need to move very rapidly from this being theory to being practice, and it’s very difficult to make that happen.”Beyond the financial, legal and logistical barriers to retreat are the psychological barriers of planning for the long term. “One of the challenges that these early conversations about retreat have run into is that we’re so focused on loss rather than focusing on what can be gained,” says Miyuki Hino, a researcher in the environment, ecology and energy program at the University of North Carolina, “whether it’s the new park, a safer community, reduced spending by local governments and by the federal government.”

A vehicle drives through a flooded street in the upscale Larchmont neighborhood of Norfolk.

The first step to managed retreat will be a radical rethinking of federal, state and local policies and subsidies that distort the true risk of living in floodplains. Federal disaster and mitigation funds, for instance, provide little incentive to restrict rebuilding in these areas. That’s fine with cities and counties, because rebuilding in a risky area keeps their tax base intact in the short term. In the long term, though, it’s bad policy, says William Stiles of Wetlands Watch, a Norfolk-based nonprofit organization that works with local governments and other nonprofits on solutions to sea-level rise.

“As seas rise, it costs more in public funds to maintain the streets, flood walls, sewer systems and EMT services than the properties generate in taxes,” he says. A study by Zillow and Climate Central last year found that after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the housing growth rate in New Jersey was nearly three times higher in areas likely to flood once a decade than in safer areas. “Think about that,” Siders says. “More homes, more families at risk. And we’re going to reward that by giving states more money the next time they have a disaster.”

In 21 states, buyers and builders aren’t warned that they’re moving into a flood zone. “I can go on Carfax and find out about the car I’m going to buy, but if I’m going to take out a 30-year mortgage and tie up myself financially, in some states I can’t find out if the house has been damaged,” says Siders. “Home buyers are being tricked into buying properties that they would not otherwise buy.”

On that stretch of Richmond Crescent in Norfolk, Joe Kennedy and his wife figured they got a bargain on waterfront property when they moved in to their $380,000 yellow house at No. 1240 in May 2017, reassured by the sellers that flooding would be a minor inconvenience for maybe 10 days a year. Kennedy, who works in commercial real estate, soon discovered otherwise. The sellers transferred their grandfathered federal flood insurance policy to him, and when he got the documents, he learned that the house had suffered flood damage in 2003, 2009 and 2011, totaling more than $32,000 in payouts. Why didn’t he know that? Norfolk has more than 1,000 properties that suffered repeated damage underwritten by federal insurance, but a 1974 federal law forbids disclosing those addresses.

Projected rise in sea level for 2100

Sources: NOAA, City of Norfolk, OpenStreetMap, Meghan Kelly for THE WASHINGTON POST



Kennedy has two children younger than 2 and a third on the way. His wife works at a hospital. They need to get in and out regularly on a street that already floods. They’re about to refinance to a 30-year mortgage. Does Kennedy think the house will be habitable in 30 years? “My wife and I ask this question to each other all the time, because we’re planting our flag here in Norfolk,” he says. The couple are considering their options. If they could sell and not lose money, they would. They may build an addition and raise the house. If they do that, it won’t be with public help.

Norfolk has spent $5 million of federal and state funds in the past decade to raise about 50 homes. In January the city received $3.2 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to raise 11 more, but after that, it will stop elevating houses in floodplains. If they sell, Kennedy says, he will inform buyers of the flood risk. That’s not what many others do. A recent nationwide study found that 3.8 million properties in floodplains may be overvalued by $34 billion because buyers would pay less if they knew about the houses’ vulnerability. Failing to properly price the risk also means there is continued development in floodplains, making future retreat harder. “The decisions we make today are going to be very influential in 30, 40, 50 years — the way we design cities and communities and where we put infrastructure,” says Hino, a co-author of the study. “Once we’ve put it there, it is really, really hard to remove it.”

Lack of information isn’t the only barrier to promoting retreat. The National Flood Insurance Program, a political punching bag $20 billion in debt that Congress repeatedly promises to reform and then doesn’t, sets risk based on flood projections that are decades out of date. For example, some areas that flooded during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 had maps that had not been updated since 1983. The program subsidizes rebuilding in increasingly risky areas. Critics — and there are many — say taxpayers in West Virginia are helping to pay for people to live on the waterfront in Virginia. Between 1978 and May 2018, more than 36,000 properties insured by the NFIP filed repeated claims for damage, according to updated statistics from an earlier NRDC study.

On average, the properties flooded five times; some flooded more than 30 times. The damage claims for single-family homes worth less than $250,000 exceeded their value. Owners received average payments of $149,980 for homes with an average value of $114,764. Since 2000, according to the study, the NFIP has spent $46.6 billion to repair and rebuild properties, but just $804 million to buy out homeowners willing to relocate. “Many of those homeowners would like nothing more than to never file another flood insurance damage claim. They would like to get out of this cycle of flood, rebuild, repeat,” says Moore of the NRDC. “But the flood insurance program isn’t in that business. The flood insurance program is in the rebuild-your-home business. What it won’t do is help you actually move somewhere safer.”

Moving out of harm’s way saves lives and money. The Great Flood of 1993, when the Mississippi and Missouri rivers and their tributaries overflowed their banks, killed 50 people and caused $15 billion in damages across nine Midwestern states. An Army Corps of Engineers study later found that to reduce the damage would have required more than $6 billion in levee improvements, but voluntary buyouts to remove structures from harm’s way would have cost only $209 million.

Joshua Behr and Carol Considine, researchers at Old Dominion University, modeled the effect of a hurricane on a vulnerable Portsmouth, Va., neighborhood and concluded that if the city invested $1 million annually in voluntary buyouts over 31 years and transformed the area into green space for floodwater retention, it would save about $40 million. (The only problem: The cash-strapped city doesn’t have the money.) Similarly, Louisiana has a plan, described as a first step, to buy thousands of threatened homes along the coast, many owned by poor and elderly residents who stayed after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. It’s an about-face from a plan just three years ago that championed staying in place. “People often think of retreat as the opposite of resilience,” Hino says. “Actually, in many cases, the most resilient thing we can do is to get out of the way.”

Figuring out how to get out of the way and pay for it will take time. Examples of moving large numbers of people are rare globally and nonexistent in the United States. Japan has relocated 145,000 homes in the years since 2011, when a tsunami washed over the northwest coast of Honshu, by forbidding rebuilding in endangered areas. “Japan tells us it can be done if the motivation is there,” says Nicholas Pinter, director of the Center for Watershed Sciences at the University of California at Davis. Still, he concedes, the lessons it offers “are grim. It takes the death of 16,000 to 20,000 people to motivate that kind of massive social change.”

Erinn Brogren, right, walks with sons Hudson, center, and James, left, along a flooded section of Richmond Crescent in Norfolk.

On the morning of Aug. 1, 1993, Dennis Knobloch, the mayor of Valmeyer, Ill., stood in a cemetery on a hill overlooking the town, helplessly watching as the levees that had protected the village for four decades failed when the Mississippi River crested at more than 49 feet, almost 20 feet above flood stage. A wall of water roared through Valmeyer, swallowing homes, rising five feet up the living room walls of Knobloch’s house.

A year later, I joined Knobloch as he wheeled his black pickup over rutted ground being graded on a limestone bluff high above the flood plain. “We’re actually on a street right now,” he told me. “To the left will be the downtown business area.” After two devastating bouts of flooding, the town’s 350 families had voted to rebuild on this higher ground a mile and a half east of the old town. When Knobloch first spoke to FEMA and suggested moving the town, he was told it would take about a decade. He refused to accept that timeline, lobbying Congress and state and federal officials. By January 1994, the first ground had been broken.

Today, Valmeyer is thriving. The old town had 900 people. The new one has 1,300 and is growing by the day. A white water tower stands sentinel over winding streets radiating from a town center. A handsome red brick school on South Cedar Bluff Drive and a village hall on nearby Knobloch Boulevard form the heart of the new community.

Valmeyer is a model — on a small scale — of managed retreat. But it’s also an illustration of the rare combination of people and circumstances that need to come together to make it happen. Knobloch says the total cost for moving 225 families, businesses and churches was about $70 million — $30 million for infrastructure and the new school and $40 million more to buy out homeowners and businesses. The move wasn’t without losses. Local businesses couldn’t wait for residents to populate higher ground, he says, and many set up shop in nearby towns.

Successful relocations, Pinter says, follow similar models: They start while feet are still wet, they have relocation blueprints in hand or create them quickly, and they have a strong leader. Knobloch, who has consulted with other towns looking to relocate, says that Valmeyer hit the rare sweet spot of available funding and political will. “If you look at our situation,” he says, “it was probably the only period in recent history where we could have done this, because at both the state and federal level, the people that were involved, both on the political side and on the side of the agencies, embraced this idea, and they had the resources to help make it happen.”

Propelling the Valmeyer relocation was post-disaster funding by the state and FEMA to pay residents for their homes. Twenty-five years later, buyouts remain a key retreat tool, although a recent study showed that they had gone down even as the threat from flooding has risen. They are expensive and the process takes years, often discouraging people who want to sell. A study by Hino, Siders and others published last year of 43,000 FEMA buyouts between 1989 and 2017 found they disproportionately benefited wealthy urban communities that have the staff to cut through the paperwork and apply for federal money. Rural communities, which have fewer resources overall to deal with the climate crisis, were less likely to apply. And purchases were piecemeal, a few properties in an average county, unlikely to effectively restore wetlands that help mitigate storm surge and flood damage.

There are a few locally funded buyout programs in the United States. Since 1999, Charlotte — an example of an inland city with a network of creeks and streams that overflow their banks when it rains — has spent $64 million to remove 460 structures and replace them with grasslands. And New Jersey’s Blue Acres program has spent $375 million to buy about 1,000 of the 346,000 homes destroyed or damaged by Hurricane Sandy, most of them threatened by river flooding.

No Driving Beyond This Point” admonishes the sign on East Seagull Drive on the southern end of Nags Head, N.C. It’s an unnecessary remnant of days past. The signpost is half buried. The street has disappeared beneath five feet of drifted sand. All but two of the eight homes that once stood on the surf side of Seagull Drive have been demolished, bought and removed by the town at a cost of $1.5 million. One defiant pink house remains, rising two stories on stilts. Another, damaged by a storm more than a decade ago, is a ramshackle, boarded-up shell with “No Trespassing” signs adorning its stilts. The owner won a long and expensive legal battle with the town, which tried to condemn the property. He has refused a $35,000 buyout offer. Instead, he’s waiting for the next big storm to knock the house down so he can collect up to $250,000 in federal flood insurance.

For the town, whose population of 2,900 balloons to as many as 40,000 on summer weekends, rising seas are an existential threat, eroding some portions of the beach by as much as six feet annually. But it has no plans to retreat. In fact, Nags Head removed the idea of retreat from its comprehensive plan years ago. Why? The town can afford to delay the inevitable, preserving a waterfront tax base by spending tens of millions of dollars rebuilding beaches. It’s working. Despite the devastation of three hurricanes in the past four years, property values in Dare County, home to Nags Head, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk and other destinations, have boomed to nearly $16 billion, 25 percent more than seven years ago.

Nags Head levies a special tax on beach properties to rebuild the beach. In 2011, the town spent $36 million to replenish the sand on 10 miles of beach. When Hurricane Matthew swept away about a third of that sand in 2016, the town rebuilt again at a cost of $43 million, $16 million of which came from FEMA. Western Carolina University researchers who compile a database on rebuilding beaches say that nearly $503 million has been spent in the past 15 years in North Carolina.

Nags Head Mayor Ben Cahoon says the town will continue to replenish for the foreseeable future, planning to spend $10 million or more every six to eight years. “Retreat in the abstract makes perfectly good sense, but it gets more complicated when you consider what if it’s just one of the most gorgeous places to live?” he says, sitting in a conference room at the town hall. “What happens if you make a retreat decision? What does that look like? It’s not an instant thing. You’re not going to buy out rows and rows of multimillion-dollar houses at one time and say, now we’ve retreated from the beach.” In his view, not rebuilding the beaches means a house here or there will be lost, creating a patchwork of vacancies over decades. Septic tanks will be exposed. Streets will surrender to the tides. “That, in fact, is what retreat would look like,” Cahoon says. “That’s not a sustainable solution either.”

Keeler, of the Coastal Studies Institute, says rebuilding beaches may make sense in the short term, but it’s not sustainable, like other protections. It sets up towns like Nags Head for a catastrophe. “If you keep nourishing [the beach], then people are going to keep investing, and if people keep investing, you’re going to keep nourishing right up to the crash,” he says. “You may be there longer, but the losses will be a lot bigger and the disruption will be a lot greater, especially if it takes place after a mondo hurricane.”

After two devastating bouts of flooding, residents of Valmeyer, Ill., decided to relocate the town to higher ground in the early 1990s. Today, Valmeyer is thriving. The old town had 900 people. The new one has 1,300 and is growing by the day. (Whitney Curtis for The Washington Post)

For cities like Norfolk, which is more than a billion dollars in debt, buyout options are limited. Norfolk has spent $650,000 to buy four homes and return those parcels to nature, but the city has more than 1,000 properties at risk, a number that will grow as the water rises. Next door, Virginia Beach shifted from focusing on elevating homes to buyouts, with an initial $1.5 million investment and a $500,000 annual budget. The city’s new study on sea-level rise identified 2,500 vulnerable properties for buyouts. “We have to get creative,” says Erin Sutton, the director of the Virginia Beach emergency management office. “The federal government is not creative. The way for us to do that is to start a program and see how it goes and hopefully continue to fund it.”

Norfolk is working with Wetlands Watch to explore buyouts using the transfer of development rights through a program with a third-party nonprofit land trust. Under the city’s zoning ordinance, developers looking to build on higher ground need a certain number of “resilience points.” In its simplest form, the developer pays the land trust and gets resilience points in return. The land trust uses the money to buy a property that has flooded at least twice within a decade. The homeowner gets a tax credit. The developer gets to build new properties. And the city gets threatened parcels removed and returned to nature. And the marketplace drives the transactions, not government.

That’s similar to a program Keeler has been championing, using buyouts but renting the property back to the homeowner until a certain date or until certain triggers — damage to the home, sea-level rise or a street becoming impassable a certain number of days within a year — come into play. Managing retreat through buyout programs, Keeler says, offers the promise of controlling the transition rather than facing what New Orleans endured after Katrina, with more than 40,000 abandoned homes. “There are no magic bullets. We’re hoping for a set of public policies that create a situation where people can avoid the worst consequences,” Keeler says. “I’m optimistic that if we’re smart, that a century from now, we can have relocated a lot of population that would have been at horrible risk if they stayed.”

A wipeout from a hurricane or a lingering storm is what George Homewood wants to avoid for Norfolk neighborhoods. But he also recognizes that property rights mean the city can’t force people to leave. “Somebody who has more resources than I have and is willing to put them at risk to enjoy looking out over water, that’s a choice they get to make,” he says.

On Richmond Crescent, Brian McDonald has made that choice. He sits in his dining room overlooking the Lafayette River as the setting sun highlights whitecaps propelled by a north wind. He bought the 80-year-old house next door, lived there for three years, sold it for a small profit, then carved out this lot and built his palace, 12 feet above sea level. A recent appraisal put his home’s value at more than $500,000. The flooding isn’t that bad, he says. He knows the water will come — there was a mark from Hurricane Isabel in his old house — but he doesn’t feel threatened. He’s in the best school district in Norfolk for his two children. He’s along the Elizabeth River biking and walking trail. And he pays only $500 a year in flood insurance. “Sure,” he says, “there were hesitations, but I think the good outweighs the bad. I mean look at this sunset. I don’t feel threatened at all by the water.”

He’s never heard of the city’s 2100 plan. “They’re gonna let the water come into Larchmont?” he asks, incredulous. “I don’t believe that. This is their tax base. You’re not going to let your taxpayers’ houses fall into the river.” He adds, laughing: “My house might be on the market next year now that you told me that. But who’s to say what’s going to happen 80 years from now?”

A flooded segment of Richmond Crescent after high tide.

Links

14/04/2020

More Than Half Of Remote Reefs In Coral Sea Marine Park Suffered Extreme Bleaching

The Guardian

Exclusive: researchers found some areas outside the bounds of the Great Barrier Reef had 90% of their shallow water corals bleached this summer

Coral Sea bleaching at Holmes Reef, about 220km east of Cairns. Extreme levels of bleaching such as this may lead to the death of many corals. Photograph: Dani Ceccarelli

More than half of the spectacular and remote coral reefs beyond the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef suffered severe bleaching this summer, an underwater scientific expedition has found.
Several reefs in the vast Coral Sea marine park known among divers for their arrays of corals, large fish and precipitous drop offs into the deep ocean suffered extreme bleaching.

Scientists from James Cook University’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies recorded the bleaching on the reefs that are more than 200km offshore during dives in February and March.

Some reefs had 90% of their shallow water corals bleached – an extreme level likely to lead to deaths of many corals, said Prof Andrew Hoey, a co-ordinator of the expedition.

Hoey said: “It’s becoming too familiar to jump in to the water and see large swatches of severely bleached corals. It’s quite devastating.”

Even at 10 metres deep, some reefs saw half their corals bleached, with isolated bleaching seen as deep as 20 metres.

Hoey, a marine biologist at James Cook University, said the results were preliminary with further analysis to be carried out for the three-year monitoring project, which comes to a close in June.

The project is the most extensive reef survey of the Coral Sea Marine Park ever undertaken and is funded by the federal government agency Parks Australia.

Bleaching at Holmes Reef. Photograph: Dani Ceccarelli

Hoey said in 2020 they had visited “the majority of the reef complexes” across the marine park that covers almost 1m sq km. A small number of reefs in the far north and far east were not visited this year.

More than half of the reefs visited had been severely bleached, including dive tourism spots like Osprey Reef north of Port Douglas, Bougainville Reef off Cooktown and Flinders Reef off Townsville.

The Coral Sea reefs are less well known than their neighbours to the west on the Great Barrier Reef, which experienced a third mass bleaching outbreak in five years this summer.

The Coral Sea reefs were surveyed between mid-February and mid-March. Hoey said water temperatures were above 30C. Usual temperatures were 27C and 28C.

Corals bleach when they sit in unusually hot water for too long. Corals can recover if bleaching is only mild but if temperatures are very high for prolonged periods, corals can die.

On 18 March, the US government’s Coral Reef Watch program produced analysis of heat stress over the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea showing “significant amounts of heat stress”.

Townsville-based Dr William Skirving, of Coral Reef Watch, told Guardian Australia: “All the Australia reefs outside of the GBR will have had significant amounts of bleaching and many would have had significant amounts of mortality.”

Hoey said unlike reefs closer to shore in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the reefs in the Coral Sea were largely unaffected by pollution and fishing pressures.

“But they are extremely susceptible to climate-induced stresses,” he said.

Hoey said it was “hard to predict” how many corals would die.

These more remote reefs, he said, relied on their own corals to spawn and regrow, unlike the more tightly packed reefs of the Great Barrier Reef.

He said: “Any coral mortality will take a lot longer to recover from because there is hundreds of kilometres between these reefs and so there’s unlikely to be a lot of connectivity between them.”

“Because of their isolation we have a lot to learn about these reefs, but we would still expect any fish and other organisms relying on the reefs to have been affected, particularly those relying on the corals for food and shelter.”

Richard Leck, WWF-Australia’s head of oceans, said it was concerning that Coral Sea reefs had bleached because they were regarded as more resilient, as they benefitted from cool water upwelling and very clear water.

He said: “The fact they have bleached shows how extreme the underwater heatwave was in the Coral Sea. It shows how close we are to a tipping point with climate change and coral reefs.

“The reefs in the Coral Sea are less well known, except amongst the high-end scuba diving community. They’re a jewel in the crown for many divers around the world to come and visit.”

Craig Stephen, managing director of Mike Ball Dive Expeditions, has been visiting the Coral Sea reefs since 1995.

He said there were still many amazing places to visit on the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea and “given time” he said he thought the reefs would recover.

“These [Coral Sea] reefs rise from the sheer depths in very clear water,” he said. “Large soft corals and sea fans dominate the depths and sharks abound, giving the diver a real sense of being in the abyss.

“You can hang off a wall that’s 1,000 metres and there you feel pretty insignificant. People enjoy the vastness of it.”

The 2020 bleaching was a “reset point for many of us” he said, adding: “We do need to step back and have a look at what we are doing to the planet.

“If we don’t take a good look at ourselves and do something about our CO2 emissions then things will get out of our control. There is a chance to do something about this.”

Links

Methane Levels Reach An All-Time High

Scientific American - Jeremy Deaton

New NOAA analysis highlights an alarming trend; experts call for curbing pollution from oil and gas wells

Credit: Richard Hamilton Smith Getty Images

A preliminary estimate from NOAA finds that levels of atmospheric methane, a potent heat-trapping gas, have hit an all-time high.

Methane is roughly 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, and while it stays in the atmosphere for only around a decade, as opposed to centuries, like CO2, its continued rise poses a major challenge to international climate goals.

“Here we are. It’s 2020, and it’s not only not dropping. It’s not level. In fact, it’s one of the fastest growth rates we’ve seen in the last 20 years,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University.

To gauge methane levels, scientists regularly gathered samples of air from dozens of sites around the world and analyzed them at NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. By comparing measurements, they were able to determine the global average. In 2019, the concentration of atmospheric methane reached nearly 1875 parts per billion, the highest level since record-keeping began in 1983.

Even more troubling, 2019 saw the second-largest single-year leap in two decades. However, this figure may change, as preliminary estimates have trended high, said Ed Dlugokencky, a research chemist at NOAA. The final numbers will likely be unveiled in November after a more detailed analysis.

“We’re still waiting to see what the final number is going to be, and it’s going to be many months before we know that,” Dlugokencky said. “But the fact that methane is increasing means it’s further contributing to climate change.”

Methane emissions primarily come from natural sources, like wetlands, and manmade sources, like farms and oil and gas wells. In wetlands, microbes excrete methane, an issue that humans can do little about. On farms, cows and sheep belch methane—a problem that people can address by raising fewer livestock.

“Eat less beef and less dairy. That’s the most straightforward thing,” Shindell said. “For the sake of our own health, we should be doing that anyway.”

The easiest way to stem methane pollution, however, is to limit its release from oil and gas drilling sites, he said. Natural gas is mostly methane, and it is prone to leaking from wells. There are essentially two ways to deal with this problem. The first is to burn the natural gas that seeps out, which turns the methane into carbon dioxide. The second is to plug the leaks.

Companies can install recovery equipment that allows them to collect the natural gas that would otherwise seep out. They can then sell this gas, helping to offset the cost of the equipment. By one estimate, oil and gas firms could cut methane pollution by 45 percent at no net cost.

Despite this, many companies are reluctant to pay for recovery equipment. Firms will instead spend their limited capital on a new drilling site, for instance, which will yield a greater return on investment, Shindell said, though practices vary.

Major players—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell—are taking steps to cap methane pollution, in part, to shore up their public image. However, smaller firms operating on thinner profit margins have less incentive to invest in recovery equipment. And the coronavirus could make the problem worse, as companies facing declining revenues could pay less attention to leaks. For this reason, advocates have called for greater regulation of the oil and gas sector.

“I think that has taken on urgency because in recent years we have witnessed a surge in production of oil and natural gas,” said Devashree Saha, a policy analyst at the World Resources Institute. “Increasing the oversight and regulation of oil and gas production is the only way to go right now.”

Methane levels were more or less flat from the late 1990s to the early 2000s. They began to rise after 2006 thanks, at least in part, to more oil and gas drilling. Their recent uptick threatens the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, as scientists had assumed that methane concentrations would stay level and then drop off when they projected how countries would meet their climate targets. Experts say that curbing methane emissions is needed to limit warming in the short term, buying humanity much needed time to adapt to climate change.

“You see the benefits in the first decade or two that you make cuts. You see fewer people dying from heat waves. You see less powerful storms and all of the stuff that comes from climate change,” Shindell said. “As long as we’re still using fossil fuels, we should at least not be leaking out lots and lots of methane.”

Links

Australian Forest Study May Challenge Climate Change Optimism

ABC Rural David Claughton

As fires burned, researchers studied how much carbon mature trees could capture and store.
Supplied: University of Western Sydney

Key points
  • A landmark Australian study has been published by Nature
  • Study finds mature forests cannot store extra carbon if emissions go up
  • The finding could affect climate modelling assumptions
As Australia's forests burned earlier this year, people around the world worried about the impact of all that smoke on our climate.

At the same time, researchers in New South Wales were finalising a study looking at the capacity for forests to consume and store carbon from the atmosphere.

The results were not comforting.

In fact, they cast doubt over many of the climate models being used to predict carbon levels into the future.

Professor Belinda Medlyn has published a significant study into the capacity of mature trees to capture and sequester carbon.
University of Western Sydney
A forest of cranes

In a unique experiment, Professor Belinda Medlyn and her team from Western Sydney University pumped carbon from a commercial supplier into a forest of 90-year-old trees.

They laid pipelines and built tubular structures in the forest to deliver the carbon into the air above the canopy.

For four years they kept the carbon levels 38 per cent higher than normal while they tracked the movement of carbon through the forest ecosystem and they built cranes to take them high enough to measure the results.

They looked at how the trees and the plants in the understory take up the CO2 and found that it passes through the ecosystem in a number of different ways, according to Professor Medlyn.

"Some of the carbon stays in the plants, some of it is eaten by insects, some of it is passed onto symbiotic fungi, some of it goes into the soil where it becomes food for soil micro-organisms."

The results

Their research showed that mature trees could consume an additional 12 per cent of carbon at elevated levels, but that it wasn't sequestered.

"Instead, the majority of the extra carbon was emitted back into the atmosphere via several respiratory fluxes, with increased soil respiration alone accounting for half of the total uptake surplus," Professor Medlyn said.

The explanation, according to Professor Medlyn, was in the soil.

"The soil that they're growing on is fairly poor. It doesn't have a lot of nutrients in it," she said.

"The plants need those nutrients to grow, so it seems what they've done when they've been given extra carbon is just to use that to go looking for extra nutrients."

Implications for global climate models

If mature trees can't store the rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere, then models based on the idea that plants will respond to increased levels of CO2 with extra growth may be wrong.

"At the moment those global calculations assume that mature forests will store will store extra CO2 as concentrations go up, but our results are implying that mature forests can't keep doing that into the future," Professor Medlyn said.

Mature trees also store a lot of carbon, so old forest still need to be protected, said Professor Medlyn.

"They do have a lot of carbon stored in them, it's just they won't keep on taking up more carbon into the future," she said.

CSIRO cautious

Carbon was piped in from a commercial source and then tubes elevated it above the canopy, raising carbon levels by 38 per cent for the study.
University of Western Sydney
Pep Canadell is the executive director of the global carbon project at the CSIRO's climate research centre.

He agreed the findings of the study, published in Nature magazine, had the potential to change the global models used to predict CO2 levels into the future.

However, he said, more work needed to be done to see if other mature forests responded in the same way, and that two other studies were underway in England and Scotland.

"The big challenge is to begin research across the world to understand if it's common or not common at all," he said.

Links

13/04/2020

The Difference Between Global Warming And Climate Change

FairPlanetAma Lorenz

ELLESMERE ISLAND, CANADA: A section of a glacier is seen from NASA's Operation IceBridge research aircraft on March 29, 2017 above Ellesmere Island, Canada. The ice fields of Ellesmere Island are retreating due to warming temperatures. Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images

‘Global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are terms that we’ve become accustomed to hearing in recent years. In fact, a simple Google search returns over one billion combined results, proving that phrases that 30 years ago were virtually unknown have now become ingrained into the English language.

However, global warming and climate change are phrases that are often confused, misunderstood or even used interchangeably.
A simple Google search returns over one billion combined results, proving that phrases that, 30 years ago, were virtually unknown have now become ingrained into the English language.
In summary, global warming describes the increase in the surface temperature across the planet, predominantly the result of high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is only one aspect of climate change, which is the long-term changes in regional or global climate, especially rainfall, wind and temperature.

Since the two processes are linked, and one is even the result of the other, it’s unsurprising that people often fail to understand the difference between climate change and global warming.

Global warming

The term global warming first became prominent in the media in the 1980s, although it was coined a decade or more earlier, mainly in response to growing scientific awareness of the damage pollutants — particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), commonly used in aerosols and refrigerants — were having on the Earth’s ozone layer.

The Earth’s surface heats during the daytime as it is struck by rays from the sun. At night, the energy from the sun is radiated back into space, theoretically allowing the surface of the planet to cool and the temperature to be maintained at an optimum level.

However, the presence of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons, causes the heat radiated from the surface of the Earth to be radiated back, in effect creating a gaseous shield around the Earth that prevents the sun’s heat from being able to escape.

LODWAR, KENYA: A young boy from the remote Turkana tribe in Northern Kenya stands on a dried up river bed on November 9, 2009 near Lodwar, Kenya. Over 23 million people across East Africa are facing a critical shortage of water and food, a situation made worse by climate change. Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

The increase over decades of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere, combined with factors such as the orbit of the Earth and changes in the energy output of the sun, has contributed significantly to heat retention at the surface level of the planet, causing the temperature of Earth to rise.
The term global warming first became prominent in the media in the 1980s, although it was coined a decade or more earlier.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, since 1880 the average surface temperature of the Earth has increased by approximately 0.95 degrees Celsius (1.71 degrees Fahrenheit). While such a small rise in the temperature may seem inconsequential, the effects of such a tiny shift can be dramatic, particularly on the planet’s climate.

Climate change

The differences between climate change and global warming are, in part, commonly misunderstood because the increased temperature leads directly to a changing climate (often seen in extremes of weather). Whereas the weather is the particular conditions in the atmosphere at a specific point of time (for example, to describe a Monday morning as ‘cloudy with a little light rain’), the climate describes the conditions in the atmosphere for an extended period of time, such as over 30 years.

Weather changes very quickly, sometimes within hours, whereas climate patterns tend to last for decades. Consequently, the climate changes more slowly and long-term trends must be considered to produce an accurate understanding of them.

Climates can also be regional or global. For climate change to be established, at least one of the climatic variables — rainfall, wind or temperature — would need to fluctuate over an extended period in the same place, whether this is in a region of the Earth or across the planet as a whole.

For example, a sustained increase in rainfall in a previously arid region of Australasia for several decades would be classified as climate change, even if the climate in other parts of the world remained stable.

CAMARILLO, CA: A man on a rooftop looks at approaching flames as the Springs fire continues to grow on May 3, 2013 near Camarillo, California. The wildfire has spread to more than 18,000 acres on day two and is 20 percent contained. Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

Climate change sceptics often argue that the climate is constantly changing and, historically, the Earth has experienced extremes of weather many times before. In part, this is accurate: climate change occurs for several reasons, some of which are entirely natural and unpredictable such as the shifting of tectonic plates or volcanic activity.

Global warming causes many side effects in terms of our fluctuating climate. Melting glaciers at the poles, more frequent and violent tropical storms, above average temperatures during summer days in Europe and extended periods of drought in developing countries can all be attributed to the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature.
The differences between climate change and global warming are, in part, commonly misunderstood because the increased temperature leads directly to a changing climate.
While natural causes can sometimes be blamed for climate change, scientists have recently concluded that human activity is almost entirely responsible for global warming during the last 170 years.

To summarise the difference between climate change and global warming, global warming (the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s surface due to the presence of gases in the atmosphere) is a significant cause of climate change. And if global warming is the cause, climate change is the effect, the long-term fluctuation in weather patterns over decades, on a regional or a global scale.

The problem of global warming should not be underestimated as it is driving a potentially catastrophic change in the world’s climates, putting the livelihoods and long-term existence of communities throughout across the planet in jeopardy.

Links

(US) No News Or Bad News? Many People Choose Ignorance Over Staying Informed, Study Finds

Grist - 

Grist / George Marks / CSA Printstock / Getty Images

Would you rather hear bad news that could help you in the long run, or remain blissfully ignorant?

That’s the question that researchers recently posed to thousands of people in over a dozen variations — including asking whether they’d want to know how badly climate change could impact their zip code. Other topics included personal health, finances, and how others perceive you. The researchers found that for every subject, there was a substantial chunk of people who preferred to not learn unpleasant information, even when they knew the information could help them over time.

It may not be a rational response, but it’s hardly shocking that we tend to avoid asking questions to which we might not like the answers: Who among us has not dodged the nutrition label on a favorite guilty pleasure food or “forgotten” to check a bank statement after a month of heavy spending? But a significant portion of respondents (20 to 75 percent, depending on the topic) chose to avoid learning helpful yet unpleasant information — a trend that held true regardless of gender, income, political leanings, and education. (Though an inclination for gambling did seem to correlate with wanting the dirty details on topics the rest of us might eschew).

To a degree, “trading off the potential pain from receiving bad news against the uncertain and delayed benefits from making more informed decisions is something we all seem to do,” said David Hagmann, one of the study’s coauthors and a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School, in a press release.

The study is the latest in a long line of research exposing idiosyncrasies in how we tend to handle unwelcome information. Confirmation bias, in which people readily accept information that fits their existing worldview but reject information that challenges it, is one of the best-documented examples. It’s a major reason fake news can proliferate so freely among like-minded connections on social media. Most people, including policymakers and communicators, still struggle to understand that the mental gymnastics we perform to protect ourselves from things we just don’t want to know are not faulty tics, but deeply embedded features in the hardwiring of our minds.
“One of the reasons that nothing is being done about climate change is that it’s too painful to think about.”Study author George Loewenstein
For climate change, an issue that people understandably associate with bad news, this phenomenon presents a significant barrier to taking action. Even people who accept the science might be reluctant to learn new (and potentially helpful) information about the topic if it means having to confront the growing scope of the problem. “One of the reasons that nothing is being done about climate change is that it’s too painful to think about,” suggests study author George Loewenstein, who admits to being an information-avoider himself. Since people avoid information they even suspect could be unpleasant, even benign climate information runs the risk of being passed over.

Putting off learning about serious topics like climate change means the problems associated with those issues will likely be much worse down the line. “Making good decisions is often contingent on obtaining information, even when that information is uncertain and has the potential to produce unhappiness,” wrote the study authors. And unfortunately, they added, “people are often ready to make worse decisions.”

To get information-avoiders on board with facing the music, Hagmann proposes making problems appear more actionable in the moment, or reframing the information so that it feels, in some way, good. “That doesn’t mean downplaying the risk, but maybe [giving] information about what you can do to adapt,” he suggested. “That’s hopefully less painful to look at.”

Links

Facing The Climate Change Crisis, Three Books Offer Some Ambitious Proposals

New York Times - Kendra Pierre-Louis

John Gall
THE FUTURE WE CHOOSE
Surviving the Crisis
By Christina Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac

The first question to ask when reading “The Future We Choose” is, Who exactly is the “we” of the title? Figueres, who helped facilitate the passage of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and Rivett-Carnac, a lobbyist for the United Nations, position their book as presenting options for what “governments, corporations and each of us can do” about climate change. But those are three distinct groups with different motivations and pressures. That the book lumps them all together regardless of their contribution to the problem — your average person in Guatemala has contributed far less to climate change than a person in New York City, and each has contributed less than an oil company — illustrates the book’s unevenness.

Further, in pursuit of their optimistic messaging, the authors are loose with certain facts. For example, their emphasis on tree planting and reforestation (laudable goals, to be sure) relies partly on a flawed study in the journal Science that overestimated how many trees can actually be planted, because of ecosystem constraints — we don’t grow trees in the desert — and how much carbon they can pull out of the atmosphere. Similarly, they write that biofuels will replace fossil fuels in airplanes, but what those fuels will be made of, and how we might balance the required agriculture with the prescription for more forestland, is not made clear.

Perhaps most unsatisfying, the book is presented as an action guide but offers few actions the average reader can actually take. Many of the pages focus on how one can cultivate the right mind-set, an especially puzzling section because it comes after the authors have chastised us for being too individualistic. (Yet of the 10 actions they highlight, only one mentions cultivating community.) It’s not that the action statements are bad — nobody would argue with engaging with politics, or nurturing a shared positive vision for the future — but the book falls short on telling us how.
210 pp. Knopf. $US23.



THE STORY OF MORE
How We Got to Climate Change and Where to Go From Here
By Hope Jahren

Reading “The Story of More,” you might become aware of a curious omission: Until about three-quarters of the way into the book, there is no direct mention of climate change. Instead, after introducing the problem of global warming in the first chapter, Jahren takes a step back.

She leads us on a journey across time and space, outlining thoughts and beliefs from Mesopotamia to her tiny Minnesota hometown. Along the way she discusses the impact of everything from population growth to Norwegian fishing to nuclear power. She takes this approach in order to present climate change as a result of broader dysfunctions having to do with consumption habits that, she says, don’t even make us happy. The only way to solve one problem, she suggests, is to solve both.
It’s an argument that contrasts with the recent spate of climate books, which opt to pummel readers with facts and guilt.Jahren, who first came to prominence with the best-selling memoir “Lab Girl,” instead writes delicately, like the whispery scrape of a skate tracing a figure on the ice.

“We wake in the morning and leave our homes and we work, work, work, to keep the great global chain of procurement in place,” she writes in a section focused on food waste. “Then we throw 40 percent of everything we just accomplished into the garbage. We can never get those hours back. Our children grow up, our bodies wane, and death comes to claim some of those we love. All the while, we spend our days making things for the purpose of discarding them.”
208 pp. Vintage. Paper, $US15.



THE 100% SOLUTION
A Plan for Solving Climate Change
By Solomon Goldstein-Rose

At 22 Goldstein-Rose became one of the youngest people to serve in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Now 26 and a climate activist, he argues that only in combination can the many climate strategies — including renewable energy, energy efficiency and sequestration — reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas levels enough by 2050 to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

His message is a necessary one. Climate action is often distilled into individualistic actions that on their own aren’t sufficient. But Goldstein-Rose doesn’t provide the comprehensive plan for solving climate change that he sets out to.

While he offers five pillars of emissions reduction, he doesn’t quantify how much we can reasonably expect to bring down the level of carbon. This is probably because his solutions depend in part on highly efficient technologies that he admits don’t exist yet. To create them, he calls for a national effort on climate change akin to the one that sent humans to the moon.

Similarly, some details raise doubts as to how much Goldstein-Rose knows about existing efforts. In a section discussing the need to reduce agriculture emissions he proposes using Peace Corps volunteers to bring sustainable agricultural practices to low-income countries, as though this were a novel idea. But in some countries, they are already doing just that. Meanwhile his discussions on energy ignore the tremendous subsidies that fossil fuels receive compared with other energy sources. When discussing the risks of nuclear energy, he focuses on power plant designs that have not yet been properly piloted, and focuses on the risk with no mention of the horrors experienced by some communities, such as the Navajo Nation, that come from extracting a plant’s fuel. As a broad idea the book works, but as a road map to climate action, it skips too many details.
294 pp. Melville House. Paper, $US19.99.

Links - Books

Lethal Heating is a citizens' initiative