Climate change: Can we be winners instead of losers?
October 29th, 2009 by cdunaganWinners. Losers.
These two words have been spinning around in my brain since I attended a conference on water resources a couple of days ago. Check out my story in today’s Kitsap Sun.
Western Washington may not experience an overall water shortage as a result of climate change the way some regions will, according to climatologists. But our rains, on average, are likely to come in heavier downpours. To me, that means we will have our hands full trying to reduce the frequency of flooding, which affects natural systems as well as man-made ones.
In areas of the country that become drier, water could become scarce and the price of water is likely to go up. We’ve seen an ongoing drought in the Southwest. While it could be a just temporary trend, the situation calls for better water management and makes people nervous about the future. Click here to see an animation of changing conditions over the past 12 weeks.
A speaker at the conference, Michael Read of the Water Environment Federation, predicted that the Northwest will attract population from the Southwest as climate change continues. Winners and losers?
It may not be a question of whether we want the extra people. It may be more about whether we can manage the population growth with the least disruption to our ecosystem. Will we find ways to work with the coming changes in climate — or not? Will we be winners or losers?
If water gives our region a competitive edge, maybe we could attract industry looking to move away from more arid regions. That could help stabilize our economy, which seems to be a perpetual goal of many people. Winners and losers?
If climatologists are right, many species in the Northwest will struggle to adapt to the changing conditions. Some will survive and some will go extinct. Winners and losers.
I am not discounting efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and possibly avert some of the more dire consequences of climate change. But a growing effort is looking into how humans and animals may adapt to whatever changes will come.
While experts study adaptation, I don’t believe the concept has entered our general consciousness, let alone our actions. Perhaps waiting to see what happens is the prudent thing to do. After all, how do we plan for something uncertain?
On the other hand, maybe it would be wiser to begin considering the range of futures we could face within a few short decades. How do we become winners instead of losers?
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
October 29th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Christopher, We can prepare for some of the changes that will come our way. Water should be collected from our rooftops, stored for another use in dryer times.
We should reduce the number of paved roads and hard surfaces, parking lots for example, grind up the pavement put in permeable surfaces or divert water to large storage ponds on site for later use in irrigation.
The state and local governments can declare that certain areas of our watersheds not be built out any further, we need these recharge areas for our groundwater fed aquifers. This will alleviate early drying of our creeks and sustain our salmonid populations a bit longer. But along with that problems with certain interests will come along too.
We could reduce our use of fossil fueled electricity by buying green energy or installing on site solar.
The list is really a new jobs program actually, people just have to move on it.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:31 am
Water refugees? I’ll post it again, although those who believe we can have our cake and eat it too seem disinclined to wake up to the reality of the situation:
Researchers at Oregon State University have determined that unless something is done to reduce population growth in the area (the VAST majority of which comes from outside the US and Canada – their findings, not mine, stifle the reflexive talking point dismissal of “RASCIST”!!!), NOTHING we do under the guise of environmental protection will save our salmon and the habitats (including Puget Sound).
New jobs program? Yeah, for bureaucrats, consultants, and special interest groups eyeing their own bank accounts and NOT the real problem before us.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:14 am
BlueLight,
You’re free to post it again, and I am happy to generally agree with you again. I was trying to find a new way of looking at the overall problem.
If you have any specific ideas for limiting population growth — including immigration — that take into account the various legal, social and economic factors, I would like to hear them.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:13 am
We are concurrently ceding sovereignty and struggling against ceding sovereignty to our local indian tribes. There are – I believe – 29 tribes in Washington State. All environmental permitting goes through them. Rather than continue to fight, perhaps we should recognize and embrace our cultural heritages and work toward designating Puget Sound as a natural, cultural reserve. Lock in existing zoning and allocate official residency (membership) based on that zoning. Property owners and renters who can prove residency as of – say January 1, 2010 – are grandfathered in as official residents of the Salish Heritage Site (this is off the top of my head). Children of these people assume citizenship. Anyone wanting to move into the area must purchase a residency unit from a property owner with excess (existing zoning). Once those allocations are gone, it shall be illegal to rent or sale real property to anyone who does not possess an official residency card.
Admittedly this is a very rough draft of an idea. It essentially means – rather than fighting our local tribes – we ask to join and, together, we close the door behind us.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“..rather than fighting our local tribes – we ask to join and, together, we close the door behind us.”
Your solution seems too simple, BlueLight and makes sense. It should work. Will the tribes comment?
Sharon O’Hara
October 30th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
As someone said in another post earlier this year, “Kinda makes you rethink the rainharvesting “thing”, doesnt it?”
November 1st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Robert — Remember that Olympia has laid claim to every drop of water that falls from the sky. DOE recently issued an administrative ruling that will allow individuals to capture some rain water and use it to water their own plants, but they reserved the right to require permits if too many people actually do it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:34 am
John,
Indeed, I read the new provision as well. I think it was a step forward in the right direction for all right reasons. Time and close observation will tell if it was the wrong decision. I think it is worthy to mention here (not to you in particular John so please dont get me wrong) that Olympia can not “lay claim” or require permits for anything without our voiced consent, considering this State is run by the people and for the people; unless there has been a change to the Constitution of The United States of America that I am not aware of. If I am wrong here, someone please enlighten me. Sometimes I like to be reminded myself, and others, every now and again what the hell millions of citizens have laid down their lives to protect.