need

The Case for Quiet Climate Change Adaption

|

Often when people talk about “Climate Change Adaption”, they open discuss mega-projects that prevent theorical stresses that face our cities and urbanized areas. They often discuss large flood walls and other reduncency that would not exist if not for climate modeling.

Yet, there is a more sensible alternative. It’s the minor project and tweaks that can help societies adapt to climate change, that cost far less. Rather then looking at the worst case scenario, planners and engineers can consider likely threats using climate models, and when building new infrastrucuture make tweaks to make them more resilant to weather and flooding that might not have existed even a generation before.

More Hints of Fall

A lot of climate change adaption will happen quietly without much public notice. Simply said, engineers are already that taking notice of recent events, and have to consider future models. Many of the changes, such as bridges designed for greater stream flow, are occuring quietly, without much public consideration.

As get we farther down the path of the changing climate, more infrastructure will fail. Settlement patterns will quietly change, as will land use. But there will be no press release or global stragety. People will adapt to what is right for them, just as infrastructure quietly adapts to a changing climate.

We Need to Balance Climate Change Against Our Needs for Energy Services

|

Like most Americans, I believe strongly we should do something about Climate Change, to limit it’s most severe impacts. Yet at the same time, I am fully aware of our needs for energy services – the stuff that energy provides for us like lighting, transportation, powering electronics and motors, heating, and cooling. We need a lot of energy too – as I noted when the BP Oil Spill occurred – all the oil that spoiled the ocean could only fuel America for about 45 seconds. Turns out the oil spill severity was much worst then originally predicted, but still it was only one and half minutes worth of petroleum consumption for the United States.

So how do we get there from here? I do not advocate a “crash” diet on petroleum and other fossil fuels. People really like the energy services that fossil fuels provide, and most people aren’t give up their vacations using their petroleum fueled automobiles, or heat and air conditioning in their houses – especially for a “projected” future problem. Electric lighting and computers are essentials of modern life that most people aren’t going to want to give up either. Cities – particularly large cities – have such intense energy needs, that fully substituting with renewables isn’t going to be practical, much less cost effective.

Sure Looks Like Rain

What needs to happen is a big compromise. We need reasonable but strong energy standards that promote and preferable renewables and energy efficiency. Those standards can’t compromise the core things that make up the necessities modern life – including reliable and affordable energy and products. We have to continue to develop fossil energy sources responsibility. At the same time, we need to choose a realistic climate goal that matches our need for energy.

There are those out there that say we can’t afford that much Climate Change destruction. Essentially slaughtering millions of people and destroying billions in property to ensure our society has the energy it needs, really isn’t a pretty choice. But it’s a realistic choice. There is no free lunch on climate change – and protecting all the energy services provides for our society is important. America needs services that energy provides, and it has to be balanced against the painful consequences of consuming that energy.

Today’s debate needs not be whether we will need fossil energy to provide for energy services we all depend on and deeply enjoy. We will need fossil energy for the foreseeable future – and probably more of it in coming years. The question is can we burn it cleanly, and efficiently so it provides the most energy services for the least amount of actual fossil energy consumed. We got to take the oldest and dirtiest power plants and replace them with modern technology. We also got to boost renewable energy to be the preferred source of energy whenever it’s reasonably cost effective.

Is Local Government Pointless?

|

There are something like 965 towns, cities, and villages in NY State, along with 64 counties. All of them have elected officials, and civil servants providing mostly state and federally mandated services.

Autumn

The question is why do we even have local government anymore?

Nobody questions that the services of counties and towns are important, but in many cases they duplicate what the state currently does. Few governing decisions are made locally anymore. Most local government decisions are made with significant state involvement or influence, in the form of state regulations, state permitting, or in many cases actual laws passed by the state.

Local governments have a lot less freedom to make decisions that many pretend. All are highly dependent on state to go along with them. Most so-called local decisions are essentially decided at the state level. Local governments like to pretend they have significant control and power, but the reality is as creatures of state, and due to economic competition by surrounding towns, they are essentially powerless to decide their futures.

Albany in July

Local government is an idiom of an earlier era before modern communication techology, and modern transportation. Local government is from an era of horse and buggies. Local government tends to be stocked with well-connected political families and patronage. Local government tends to be totally ineffective, in an era when regional and indeed nationwide planning is needed, when any local decision can have vast impacts far beyond it’s own borders.

In a modern technocratic era, local decision making makes little sense, and squanders important public resources.