5 Ways Climate Changes are Hammering Cape Cod This Summer

Flooding on Cape Cod, 2007 (Flickr/Chris Seufert)

How is global warming changing Cape Cod? Sean Gonsalves of the Cape Cod Times lists five ways, concluding:

5) New waterfront property.

"Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps" are being released by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Surprise! They show flood hazard zones in Cape towns will significantly expand, which means skyrocketing flood-insurance premiums — as high as $10,700.

This comes on the heels of several studies showing sea levels will continue to rise. Again, I refer you to the Department of Energy report: "Floods are projected to increase in frequency and intensity" especially in areas "that are expected to receive increased annual precipitation, such as the Midwest and the Northeast."

Let us now give thanks for this costly gift bequeathed to us by previous generations and the expensive lesson in adaptability it will provide.

Fortunately for Cape Cod, the same clean energy solutions that cut climate-disrupting carbon pollution will also create jobs and bring energy stability on the Cape. Show your support for Cape Wind.

Jobs and a Safe Climate or Bill Koch's Estate View: Whose Side Are You On?

When Cape Wind begins construction, it will be the leading edge of an offshore wind industry that's already created 35,000 jobs in Europe. As Cape Wind's Hannah Wood writes in the Cape Cod Times, those jobs are critical to a region in transition:

I know for some, concerns about Cape Wind stem from a desire to keep the Cape as it is. But, like it or not, climate change is already affecting the Cape.

The question for all of us is whether we try to control the change or let it control us. If we don't start using cleaner sources of energy, we are on a course to see much more severe erosion from our beaches and dunes and continued harm to fish and other wildlife, as well as to the plants and trees that we all enjoy.

Constructing this offshore wind farm is the type of change we need to ensure that future generations can appreciate the Cape as much as we do now.

Young people on Cape Cod also need more sustainable industries here that pay decent salaries year-round so more of them stay here to raise families of their own. Offshore wind is a move in the right direction, and Cape Wind is a crucial first step.

But what about the view from Bill Koch's vacation estate? And what about all the other wealthy Cape Cod landowners hiding behind front groups to attack Cape Wind? What should come first - our economic development, public health, and long-term climate security, or their pristine estate views?

Sign the Conservation Law Foundation & MoveOn.org Civic Action petition to stand up to Bill Koch and build Cape Wind now.

Is PEER's New England Chapter Lost in the Woods?

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility does some great work nationally, but the PEER New England Chapter's strong opposition to an offshore wind project has split the group from many of its traditional allies in the conservation community, with its opposition to a public transportation initiative also raising eyebrows.

While most conservation groups are supporting Cape Wind or at least staying neutral, PEER's New England Chapter has joined wealthy oil baron William Koch in vehemently opposing the project. Even though Cape Wind would lead to massive reductions in air pollution, including the greenhouse gases fueling the climate change that threatens people and wildlife, PEER New England Chapter Chair Kyla Bennett says the potential threats to wildlife are too great. Mr. Koch, for his part, wants you to believe his opposition is all about environmental preservation and not at all about protecting the views of a handful of wealthy Cape Cod landowners.

PEER's New England Chapter is also the environmental group most often cited in opposing a plan to extend commuter rail from Boston to the SouthCoast cities of Fall River and New Bedford, both in desperate need of an economic boost. Despite highways clogged due to limited transit options and extensive environmental reviews, PEER's New England Chapter says trains wouldn't be worth the money and would cause irreparable damage to the Hockomock Swamp.

PEER New England Chapter Chair Kyla Bennett lives in Easton, MA, which is next to the swamp. As New Bedford Standard-Times columnist Jack Spillane put it, "Apparently, development in and around the Hockomock Swamp is alright when it's for the benefit of mostly white suburbanites, but not so acceptable when it's for the benefit of urban people, many of whom are of color."

Reasonable people can debate the costs and benefits of each project and disagree about the best course of action. But to me (and here is where I should remind you that, as always, I speak only for myself on this blog), it comes down to this: Is environmentalism about pragmatism to benefit the many? Or absolutism to protect the few?