Who will pay for the cost of overheated humans in the age of climate change?

Hey there, it's hot in here

SOURCE: The Walt Disney Company (News Release)

 

 

 

One of the inevitable consequences of climate change is that in most places temperatures will rise. This may seem welcome (at least for a while) in cooler regions, but most people live in temperate and tropical zones. When the Walt Disney Co. built Disney World in central Florida—it opened in 1971—the location was warm and sunny three seasons of the year, even if a little hot in the summer.

Now, central Florida is not just a little hot in the summer; it has become unbearable for many of Disney World's employees who must work outside, some of them wearing heavy costumes while playing such roles as Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Disney princesses. With the local heat index rising above 100 degrees F, outdoor workers are becoming overheated and complaining about lack access to shade, water and adequate break time. Recently, a broken air-conditioner in a waiting room for actors led to two fainting incidents—after which the air-conditioner was repaired.

Of course, Disney workers aren't the only ones suffering from overheating. Those working in farm fields aren't there to entertain people, but to do heavy work in the noonday sun. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) reports that farmworkers suffer heat-related mortality at rates 20 times those of other workers. The EDF calculates that 2 million farmworkers in the United States now face 21 days a year during which heat conditions are unsafe. But climate change is a moving target. If global greenhouse gas emissions peak at mid-century, that would add an additional 18 days of unsafe heat conditions.

Mexican oil production to decline rapidly after 2030: Tip of the iceberg?

The news agency Reuters has seen something the rest of us haven't: Internal Mexican government estimates of that country's future oil production which paint a gloomy picture of rapid decline after 2030. Is this admission just the tip of the iceberg?

For many years those of us suggesting that a peak in worldwide oil production was in the offing kept pointing to several pieces of intelligence including the following:

1. Leaks of information about lower-than-publicly-stated oil reserves among major oil producers. In 2005, leaked internal government documents put Kuwait's oil reserves at 48 billion barrels, just half of the 99 billion publicly claimed at the time.


2. Unexplained massive one-year jumps in oil reserves of major OPEC producers in the 1980s. This was probably tied to OPEC production quotas that were, in part, based on stated reserves. In 2007 the former executive vice president for exploration and production at Saudi Aramco told an audience that as a result of these unwarranted jumps in reported oil reserves, world reserves had been overestimated by 300 billion barrels.

Not with a bang but a whimper: Making our own pandemics

One headline last week suggested that future pandemics are "a bigger threat than nukes." Hence, my allusion to T. S. Eliot's poem The Hollow Men in my title. Pandemics may or may not be a bigger threat than nuclear war, but the assertion highlights the increasing concern some of those in the medical community have regarding ongoing failed policies in addressing COVID even as a summer surge of cases hits the United States. Our own response and behavior is not only sustaining COVID infections, but also setting the stage for new pandemics.

For example, concern remains that the ongoing "bird flu" infections of cattle will lead to variants capable of being spread human-to-human. It's worth reiterating that since 2003 half of the 889 people worldwide known to have contracted the virus called H5N1 have died.

While what is called the case fatality rate for COVID is notoriously difficult to estimate—because so many cases have gone unreported—one estimate puts it at 0.7 percent. That means the rate for the small number of bird flu cases in humans is more than 71 times higher than COVID. And, yet there seems to be little effort in the United States to check the spread of bird flu among cattle, let alone poultry. Some 99 million chickens and turkey have been infected since a new "highly pathogenic strain" appeared in early 2022. These developments seem like they should be "hair on fire" events given the potential seriousness of the outcome. Finland is so far the only country to offer bird flu vaccinations for people, in this case, those who work with potentially infected animals.

Can coastal property values weather climate change?

A reader of mine asked the following question in a recent email: If climate change is such a threat, how come U.S. coastal properties continue to rise in value? This seems like a conundrum unless you know what is actually driving the trend. And, it's worth noting that coastal home prices in certain instances have suddenly collapsed along with the shoreline next to those homes due to coastal erosion—which, not surprisingly, increases with rising sea level. A Nantucket seaside home assessed for tax purposes just this year at $1.9 million recently sold for $200,000. Expect more stories like this one to start appearing in the news.

So, what about other homes that continue to hold their value and even rise in value? Here are some of the drivers of what will some day be considered an insane bubble in coastal real estate prices:

Why adaptation to climate change misses the mark

The climate change deniers frequently offer three contradictory responses as their position becomes more and more untenable in the face of mounting evidence, to wit: 1) There is no climate change, 2) it'll be cheaper to adapt to climate change than prevent it, and 3) climate change is good for us—it will improve agriculture and open the Arctic to resource exploitation.

It is the second of these that I wish to discuss. There is no solid evidence that adapting to climate change will be cheaper, nor do the deniers provide a clear picture of what adapting would mean. In other words, they have no comprehensive plan; they are simply trying to muddy the waters to stall efforts at addressing climate change because the business interests behind them do not want to bear the costs.

The number one reason adaptation will be so costly is that climate change is a moving target. Sea level, temperature, and severe weather are not going to simply reach a new constant level to which we can adapt for the long run. On the contrary, these are all moving targets. Infrastructure improvements made today which are meant to last 20, 30, even 50 years are unlikely to address the ever-rising sea level, temperatures and severe weather in those periods. We have been consistently surprised by the pace of climate change. There is no reason to believe that the surprises will magically cease.

Taking a short break - no post this week

I am taking a short break this week and plan to post again on Sunday, July 7.

What the H5N1 scare tells us about ourselves and our society

I don't know whether there is an H5N1 "bird flu" pandemic in our future. H5N1 seems to be very dangerous to humans. Half of the 900 people known to have contracted it worldwide since 2003 have died. And, so a lot of scientists are concerned about the possibility of a pandemic now that the virus has crossed over into mammals including dairy cows.

That means that the milk we drink may have the virus in it though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says that pasteurization makes the milk safe. Or does it? A recent study indicates that a "small but detectable quantity" of H5N1 bird flu virus can survive "a common approach to pasteurizing milk."

We humans think we can build moats around our modern way of life that protect us from the natural world. We will pasteurize our milk and that will solve the problem. We will spray kitchen counters with some noxious disinfectant to kill offending organisms. We will wash our hands again and again with anti-bacterial soaps. And, when soap and water are not available, we'll use hand sanitizer. All the while we have actually been building the equivalent of superhighways into the heart of human society everywhere due to our dense living arrangements and global travel and trade.

Boondoggle Watch: Carbon capture great for making things worse, study finds

The study I refer to didn't actually say that carbon capture makes things worse. But that is the only conclusion one can draw given that the capturing is done for the purpose of dramatically lengthening the life of oil wells that would otherwise close, according to a recent piece in DeSmog. The oil wells in question are in Saskatchewan and were scheduled to close in 2016. Now with carbon dioxide pumping into them, they could produce oil for somewhere between 39 and 84 more years.

Back in May I reminded readers of a more expansive definition of the word "boondoggle," one promulgated by author Dmitri Orlov. To wit: It's not just something that is wasteful. Ideally, it should be something which "create[s] additional problems that can only be addressed by yet more boondoggles."

Carbon capture, it turns out, provides an excellent complementary boondoggle to the machines mentioned in my previous piece, machines which extract carbon dioxide from air rather than at the source as is done with carbon capture. In this case the carbon dioxide comes from the Dakota Gasfication Plant in Beulah, North Dakota, which according to its website is "the only commercial-scale coal gasification facility in the United States that manufactures natural gas." The gas—made synthetically from lignite coal—is piped to various electric cooperatives in five states which burn it to generate electricity. The captured carbon dioxide is then transmitted via pipeline to the Weyburn and Midale oil fields in Saskatchewan and injected into oil wells to force oil out, something the industry refers to as enhanced oil recovery.

After Cape Town will a breakdown of confidence bring 'Day Zero' to Mexico City and Bogotá?

'Day Zero' never arrived in Cape Town, South Africa. Day Zero was the name given by Cape Town officials to the day in 2018 they would have to shut down water flows to most of the city taps because of inadequate water supplies—supplies that had run desperately short in the wake of an extreme three-year drought. Day Zero never came for two reasons: First, those officials cajoled Cape Town residents into cutting water consumption in half. Second, the rains finally resumed a few months later.

Now Mexico City and Bogotá are both facing their own possible Day Zero. Droughts, aging infrastructure, poor water management and climate change have resulted in dangerously low water supplies. But, as this piece in Grist points out, it may not be so easy to convince residents of the two cities that the problem is real and that they should trust the pronouncements of their city officials.

The city administration in Cape Town generally enjoys the trust of its citizens who rallied together with widespread voluntary efforts to reduce water consumption. Neither Mexico City nor Bogotá enjoy that same kind of credibility.

Residents of both cities may simply keep their fingers crossed and hope for rain. And, if they do and the rain doesn't come, then Day Zero will arrive.

Messy business: Polluted 'biosolids' derail recycling of human waste

Many years ago a civil engineer explained to me the wisdom of taking solid biological residues from sewage treatment plants—dubbed biosolids—and using them on farm fields and garden plots. After all, nature intended for human wastes to return to the soil to replenish it in the same way animal manure has long been used to fertilize farm fields.

"What about all the industrial chemicals that end up in wastewater," I asked. He replied that these weren't significant enough to be concerned. I was skeptical.

Fast forward to last week when the U.S. Congress took up a proposal to allocate $500 million to compensate farmers whose livelihoods have been undermined by applying biosolids—what most of us call sewage sludge—to their cropland. It turns out that those biosolids have poisoned both land and livestock across the United States. The ostensible concern is so-called "forever chemicals," ones used to make such products as Teflon, firefighting foam, stain-resistant upholstery and water-resistant sports gear. These chemicals are linked to "cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease." They are dangerous to human and animal health even at very low levels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this year proposed limiting certain of these chemicals to less than 10 parts per trillion in drinking water. In two cases, the proposed limit is 4 parts per trillion.