New Scientist - Details

Listing ID: 1249

Title: New Scientist

Description: An environment blog from New Scientist blogs.

Category: Science : Environment

Owner:

listed on: July 09, 2008 03:02:03 PM

Number Hits: 0 times

Recent Posts:

This blog's moving home! - Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:37:00 +0000

After more than two years and many posts, the environment blog is moving home. We're merging with Short Sharp Science, a blog for everythingNew Scientistcovers in the world of science, technology and ideas. You can view that new,super-blog here, and see only theenvironment posts at this link. For those of you viewing in RSS, please update your readers tosubscribe to this new feed. Catherine Brahic, environment reporter

How Galveston weathered the storm - Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:30:00 +0000

Every hurricane is different, and a key difference between this year's Ike and Katrina three years ago was in the area it hit. With large areas below sea level and weak levees, New Orleans was far more vulnerable to damage from Katrina than Houston and Galveston were to Ike. Galveston is among the US coastal cities best-prepared to face a hurricane. It learned the hard way in 1900 when a hurricane hit the low-lying island without warning,killing more than 8000 people. The city rebuilt, raising land level as much as 5 metres and armouring the coast with a five-metre seawall that now stretches along the eastern 16 kilometers of the island. Houston is flat and vulnerable to flooding in heavy rains, but only the edge of the city lies on Galveston Bay, which means the heart of the city is protected from storm surges. Ike's storm surge failed to reach the 6 to 7.5 metres predicted, saving much of Galveston. But coastal areas lacking seawalls, including the western part of Galveston and the Bolivar Peninsula to the east, were devastated, with many houses demolished. Ike was a huge storm, nearly 1000 kilometers across, so its flooding reached east into western Louisiana. Reports are spotty from the damaged area, most of which remains without power. Many people cannot return to their homes, and people who weathered the storm on Galveston are being evacuated. There are reports of problems in delivering emergency supplies. Although theNew York Timeshad onechilling on-the-scene reportfrom post-storm Galveston, it is now focusing on the weekend's financial meltdown. NOLA.com (New Orleans Times-Picayune) reports that parts of Galveston are "all a memory now", while theHouston Chroniclesays the return to Galvestoncould take weeks. Meanwhile thePort Arthur Texas Newshad a macabre report ofcaskets from grave sites being floated by Ike's floodwaters. TheGalveston County Newssiteis down at the moment, presumably because of damage. Jeff Hecht, New Scientist correspondent

Palin and McCain: At odds over the environment - Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:37:00 +0000

Someone, please, clarify something for me: what happens when a president and his vice-president "agree to disagree"? At least the George W Bush administration was consistent within itself. But with the new Republican ticket, we are faced with the prospect of a US president who is against drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge paired to a VP who staunchly supports it, and says the two will just have to "agree to disagree". What does that mean? And will she be equally conciliatory about their opposite views regarding the causes of climate change? It's difficult to follow McCain's mercurial views, but he backs the scientific consensus that industrial activities are causing climate change and has supportedcap and trade. Palin, on the other hand acknowledges that global warming is happening, but is "not one who would attribute it to being man-made". When couples agree to disagree, it's generally a way of closing a discussion, shelving it, putting it away, forgetting about it entirely. But this is crunch-time for the climate. InCopenhagen in 2009, world leaders will have to make arguably the most important environmental decision of their respective terms in office. For the new US government, it will be their first great foray into international climate negotiations. After years of supreme isolationism, finally broken by the Bush administration'sastonishing performance at UN climate talks last December, the world will be looking to the US. What -what- will happen if the country's leaders have "agreed to disagree"? "When it comes to environmental issues, the only difference between George W Bush and Sarah Palin is lipstick," said Kate Troll, executive director of Alaska Conservation Voters, a local green group. I disagree. Bush may have had his arm twisted, but he did concede that humans are causing climate change. It may have taken many a sleepless night in Bali, but his representatives did agree to draw up a post-Kyoto treaty by 2009. It may have caused him to shun UN discussions on climate change, but his world's biggest emitters committee did create a forum for China and the US to meet and discuss their positions on climate at the highest possible level. The difference between Bush and Palin is not lipstick. It's much more than that. Palin makes Bush look like a forward-thinking tree-hugger. To elect her would be to take four steps back after it took Bush eight years to take two steps forward. Yes, in the short term, the world is going to have to burn more fossil fuels. But we desperately need leaders - not just US leaders, mind - who can look beyond the short-term, and far beyond their terms in office. Climate agreements span decades. The leaders who sign them are working on long-term legacy, not short-term glory. The vacancy at the White House requires someone who can deal with short-term crises and has the ideals to form a realistic long-term vision. With all due respect, Palin does not fit the bill. "Agreeing to disagree" probably makes her a very pleasant person to spend time with. It does not make her a vice-president. Catherine Brahic, environment reporter