The CLIMB study examined three possible responses to global warming in Boston. The first, and by far the most expensive in the long run, is to simply “ride it out” — that is, take no pro-active steps but simply fix property and infrastructure as they’re damaged. The second possible response, slightly less costly, is the “build your way out” plan. This would mean taking isolated actions in advance: building sea walls, erecting bulkheads, etc. Finally, there’s the “green” approach, which “assumes fairly aggressive pre-emptive actions to blunt the effects of global warming. This includes new building codes for greater energy efficiency, early-warning systems in anticipation of extreme high temperatures, and, above all, steps to minimize the effects of flooding in metro Boston’s coastal plain.” Sure, it would be expensive. But it may just be that we can’t afford not to do it. CLIMB found that the worst-case costs of severe coastal flooding alone during the next 100 years could approach $94 billion.

But when Kirshen talks to planners and other people in a position to make infrastructure changes, “most of them say, ‘What you’re talking about makes a great deal of sense. But we can’t afford to deal with present problems.’ The other problem is the political system. Politicians, unfortunately, are on a short agenda. Two to four to six years. And they aren’t thinking too far ahead. It’s tough to encourage pro-active action.”

All the same, there are some bright spots. For instance, the MWRA built the Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant higher than it had to be, because it knew the sea level was rising. “That’s held up nationally as an example of successful pro-active adaptation,” says Kirshen.

And it’s true that Massachusetts and other Northeastern states are taking a more active approach to the coming changes than the rest of the country is. In April, the commonwealth joined nine other states in suing the Environmental Protection Agency for its decision to not regulate carbon dioxide pollution. Last month, Attorney General Tom Reilly joined nine other state AGs in filing a suit challenging President George W. Bush’s lax fuel-economy standards for SUVs and light trucks. And even though in December Mitt Romney pulled Massachusetts out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — the eight-state pact aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions 10 percent by 2019 — legislation is pending in the state Senate that would compel us to rejoin.

But, says Marc Breslow, director of Massachusetts Climate Action Network, there’s much more to be done. While Massachusetts has “existing regulations to reduce carbon dioxide emissions for the six dirtiest electricity power plants, Romney’s currently trying to weaken them, setting a cap on how much the plants would have to pay. And if it exceeds that, they’d just have to pay the cap as a fine and wouldn’t have to clean up.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The good news, Breslow says, is that “I don’t think there is ever a ‘too late.’ It’s true, we’re already too late to prevent some of the effects of global warming. But I don’t think there’s gonna be a ‘too late.’ ”

But changes need to be made. Now. “We need a new, sustainable paradigm,” says Paul Epstein. He thinks we can do it. After all, he says, “necessity is the mother of invention.”

On the Web
The National Environment Trust: //www.net.org/
CLIMB's full report: //www.net.org/reports/climb_fullreport.pdf