Quantcast

Trump's Right, We Do Need to Build a Wall

Popular
Climate Central

By Elliott Negin

After President Trump met with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto last Friday at the G20 summit in Germany, a reporter asked him if he still wants Mexico to pay for a wall along the U.S. southern border. "Absolutely," Trump replied.

Regardless of who foots the bill, the wall—which could cost as much as $21 billion—would be a colossal waste of money, with or without the solar panels Trump says he now wants to add. The border is already well-defended, undocumented migration from Mexico has dropped dramatically since 2008, and undocumented immigrants don't take jobs away from Americans.


That said, building a wall is actually a good idea. Several walls, in fact. But not to keep out undocumented immigrants. To keep out the sea.

Flooded Coastal Communities

Earlier this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a report on how rising sea levels brought on by climate change could affect U.S. coastal communities, home to 40 percent of our population. In a worst-case scenario, the agency estimates that seas along the coasts in some places could rise nearly 2.5 meters—about 8 feet—by the year 2100. That's 2 feet higher than what NOAA estimated just five years ago.

The year 2100, however, is a long way off, and sea level rise is a serious problem right now. More than 90 U.S. coastal communities are already experiencing chronic flooding, according to a new study by researchers at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published Wednesday in the journal Elementa. These high tide floods, which are often only a foot or two deep, can cover coastal roads for hours, trap residents in their homes, disrupt businesses and cause structural damage.

The incidence of chronic flooding—which UCS defines as occurring at least 26 times a year and affecting 10 percent or more of a municipality's usable land—will increase as time goes on due to climate change. The only question is how much. UCS researchers project that the number of chronically inundated cities and towns will double by 2035. By mid-century, the number of localities likely will jump to somewhere between 270 and 360, depending on whether carbon emissions continue to rise or decline.

A 2014 UCS sea level rise study, meanwhile, estimated that the number of high-tide floods in two-thirds of 52 cities along the Eastern and Gulf coasts, including Boston, Miami, Philadelphia and Savannah, could triple by 2030. Several New Jersey shore towns could see at least 80 tidal floods a year, while Annapolis, Maryland and Washington, DC, could average more than 150 tidal floods annually. Throw in some hurricanes and other storms, and this increased flooding along the two coasts will likely devastate local economies.

Let's translate that into language our real-estate-developer-in-chief would understand.

If we continue to burn fossil fuels at present rates, "by 2050 between $66 billion and $106 billion worth of existing coastal property will likely be below sea level nationwide, with $238 billion to $507 billion worth of property below sea level by 2100," according to a 2014 report commissioned by the Risky Business Project headed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer.

That bill will come due well before 2050, however. "Within the next 15 years," the Risky Business report projected, "higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms along the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico by $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Adding in the potential changes in hurricane activity, the likely increase in average annual losses grows to up to $7.3 billion, bringing the total annual price tag for hurricanes and other coastal storms to $35 billion."

So, if President Trump is keen on building a wall, his administration should provide federal support to coastal states, counties and cities that are already grappling with rising ocean levels. They will need not only walls, but also bulkheads, jetties and other hardened structures, as well as vegetated dunes, salt marshes and other natural "soft" shoreline defenses to hold back the sea. And all of that infrastructure may still not be enough. A good number of coastal residents will have to abandon their homes and businesses and move inland to higher ground.

Trump Properties at Risk

Several coastal cities are now considering sea walls and other barriers. City officials in Boston, for example, are exploring the possibility of building a 4-mile-long sea wall in an arc around Boston Harbor that would stand at least 20 feet above the water at low tide. They also are investigating other ways to protect city residents and $80 billion worth of real estate, including constructing berms around neighborhoods, redirecting flood waters into canals, and flood-proofing buildings. Meanwhile, more than 60 elected officials and business leaders in Texas sent a letter to President Trump in April requesting $15 billion in federal funds for a coastal barrier system to defend the Houston and Galveston bay areas from hurricane storm surges. The signatories, who include 20 mayors and eight state legislators, stressed the area's economic importance—and its vulnerability. In 2008, Hurricane Ike caused more than $29 billion in damages on the state's upper coast. If Ike had hit the port of Houston, the letter pointed out, it would have resulted in more than $100 billion in damages.

Given there are no Trump hotels or golf courses in Texas or Massachusetts, President Trump may not care much about Houston or Boston. But he—or at least someone in his far-flung empire—apparently does worry about the threat rising seas pose to Trump properties. His Irish firm, for instance, has been trying to get a permit to build a nearly 2-mile long, 13-foot-high wall to protect a Trump luxury golf resort in the village of Doonbeg from rising sea levels and increasingly severe storms.

As it turns out, there are a number of Trump properties here in the U.S. that also are in harm's way.

New York City: Let's start with Trump's hometown, New York, where his family owns 13 buildings in Manhattan. Five years ago, Hurricane Sandy, which cost the region $60 billion, prompted local officials to look into ways to defend the city from floods and storm surge.

As writer Jeff Goodell pointed out in a July 2016 feature in Rolling Stone, Can New York Be Saved in the Era of Global Warming? a lot is at stake. Home to 8.5 million people, the city generates nearly 10 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Then there's its vast network of subways, tunnels and other underground infrastructure, and—of course—row upon row of skyscrapers. By Goodell's count, "71,500 buildings worth more than $100 billion stand in high-risk flood zones today, with thousands more buildings at risk with each foot of sea level rise." The eight Trump buildings clustered around Central Park's south end and the Upper East Side are relatively safe, but two of his properties—the 46-story Trump Soho Hotel Condominium and the 70-story Trump Building on Wall Street—are on the island's southern tip, one of the most vulnerable areas in the city.

New York is currently planning to construct a massive barrier system, dubbed "the Big U," that may eventually loop around the bottom of Manhattan, from 42nd Street on the East Side to 57th Street on the West Side. The barrier, more of a berm than a wall, will be covered by grass and trees, as well as benches and bike paths, and is expected to cost more than $3 billion. Will the Trump administration include it in its infrastructure plans—and will those plans ever get off the ground?

Florida: South Florida also is worthy of the president's attention. After all, it's home to his "Winter White House," the $200-million, 123-room Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, as well as the Trump Towers and Trump Grande complex in Sunny Isles Beach, and Trump Hollywood in Hollywood, all which sit on narrow barrier islands between Florida's Intercoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean. There are also three Trump golf courses in the state, in Jupiter, Miami, and West Palm Beach. All of the properties, except the Jupiter golf course, are at risk.

Mar-a-Lago's 20 acres stretch the width of a barrier island off the coast of Palm Beach, an area already plagued by chronic tidal flooding. A 3-foot sea level rise—expected by 2060 or 2080 depending on how fast the ocean rises—would inundate the resort's western lawn and nearby roads that lead to the property. Likewise, a 3-foot sea level rise would flood much of the west side of the barrier island where the Trump Towers and Trump Grande complex are located, just east of North Miami Beach. Both properties would be spared in that scenario, but add another foot and major sections of the main road running south to Miami Beach would be permanently under water.

Before that happens, though, chronic flooding along the coast is expected to worsen significantly. Based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates and tide gauge data, a 2016 UCS report projected that tidal floods in Coral Gables, Miami, Miami Beach and other South Florida municipalities will jump from today's six times per year to as many as 80 times per year by 2030 and more than 380 times per year by 2045—more than one a day. But given that saltwater is already tainting regional drinking water supplies and tidal flooding is commonplace even when the sun is shining, government agencies are now beginning to respond to the threat.

Three years ago, Miami Beach initiated a $500-million pump project to keep water off the streets. Last year, Fort Lauderdale raised the required height for sea walls, but only for rehab projects and new construction. Delray Beach has installed valves in some sea walls that prevent saltwater from spilling into the city's drainage system. And later this year, Miami will kick off a $100-million flood prevention program to raise roads, install pumps and water mains, and redo sewer connections in two neighborhoods, part of a citywide effort that is expected to cost as much as $500 million. But much more needs to be done to protect the 3.5 million state residents at risk of coastal flooding, and that will take millions, if not billions, of dollars.

Hawaii: Finally, the Trump family owns a hotel on Waikiki Beach in Honolulu. Like South Florida, tidal flooding is already wreaking havoc in the city, and rising sea levels will make things much worse. According to a March University of Hawaii study, if the sea level increases 3 feet, flooding that occurs when groundwater seeps above ground level would inundate much of Honolulu.

"The flooding will threaten $5 billion of taxable real estate; flood nearly 30 miles of roadway; and impact pedestrians, commercial and recreation activities, tourism, transportation and infrastructure," said Shellie Habel, lead author of the study. "The flooding will occur regardless of seawall construction, and thus will require innovative planning and intensive engineering efforts to accommodate standing water in the streets."

An Ounce of Prevention

Boston, Honolulu, Houston, Miami and New York are just a small sample of the cities and towns that will need federal assistance to protect their residents and real estate from rising seas. The cost of adaptation, including sea barriers, pump stations, and better road and bridge design, will not come cheap, but compared to the cost of everyday flooding, let alone hurricanes and storm surges, it's a bargain.

Beyond adaptation, however, there's an obvious, common-sense solution: prevention. How can the world avoid a 3-foot sea level rise by 2060, let alone an 8-foot rise by 2100? By dramatically reducing carbon emissions. A certain amount of sea level rise is already locked in, but slashing emissions would slow the rising sea rate and reduce the frequency and intensity of the resulting floods. Would it save Mar-a-Lago and other Trump coastal properties? Yes, it most certainly would. Will that stark reality stop Trump from trying to sabotage worldwide efforts to curb carbon emissions? One could only hope so.

Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Research assistance was provided by climate scientist Kristina Dahl, a UCS consultant. Data on the impact of sea level rise on Trump properties are from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea Level Rise Viewer.

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Plateau Creek near De Beque, Colorado, where land has been leased for oil and gas production. Helen H. Richardson / The Denver Post / Getty Images

By Randi Spivak

Slashing two national monuments in Utah may have received the most attention, but Trump's Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service have been quietly, systematically ceding control of America's public lands to fossil fuel, mining, timber and livestock interests since the day he took office.

Read More Show Less
Global SO2 Emission Hotspot Database / Greenpeace

A new report by Greenpeace International pinpointed the world's worst sources of sulfur dioxide pollution, an irritant gas that harms human health. India has seized the top spot from Russia and China, contributing nearly 15 percent of global sulfur dioxide emissions.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
The huge surge this year in Amazon deforestation is leading some European countries to think twice about donations to the Amazon Fund. LeoFFreitas / Moment / Getty Images

By Sue Branford and Thais Borges

Ola Elvestrun, Norway's environment minister, announced Thursday that it is freezing its contributions to the Amazon Fund, and will no longer be transferring €300 million ($33.2 million) to Brazil. In a press release, the Norwegian embassy in Brazil stated:

Given the present circumstances, Norway does not have either the legal or the technical basis for making its annual contribution to the Amazon Fund.

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro reacted with sarcasm to Norway's decision, which had been widely expected. After an official event, he commented: "Isn't Norway the country that kills whales at the North Pole? Doesn't it also produce oil? It has no basis for telling us what to do. It should give the money to Angela Merkel [the German Chancellor] to reforest Germany."

According to its website, the Amazon Fund is a "REDD+ mechanism created to raise donations for non-reimbursable investments in efforts to prevent, monitor and combat deforestation, as well as to promote the preservation and sustainable use in the Brazilian Amazon." The bulk of funding comes from Norway and Germany.

The annual transfer of funds from developed world donors to the Amazon Fund depends on a report from the Fund's technical committee. This committee meets after the National Institute of Space Research, which gathers official Amazon deforestation data, publishes its annual report with the definitive figures for deforestation in the previous year.

But this year the Amazon Fund's technical committee, along with its steering committee, COFA, were abolished by the Bolsonaro government on 11 April as part of a sweeping move to dissolve some 600 bodies, most of which had NGO involvement. The Bolsonaro government views NGO work in Brazil as a conspiracy to undermine Brazil's sovereignty.

The Brazilian government then demanded far-reaching changes in the way the fund is managed, as documented in a previous article. As a result, the Amazon Fund's technical committee has been unable to meet; Norway says it therefore cannot continue making donations without a favorable report from the committee.

Archer Daniels Midland soy silos in Mato Grosso along the BR-163 highway, where Amazon rainforest has largely been replaced by soy destined for the EU, UK, China and other international markets.

Thaís Borges.

An Uncertain Future

The Amazon Fund was announced during the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, during a period when environmentalists were alarmed at the rocketing rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. It was created as a way of encouraging Brazil to continue bringing down the rate of forest conversion to pastures and croplands.

Government agencies, such as IBAMA, Brazil's environmental agency, and NGOs shared Amazon Fund donations. IBAMA used the money primarily to enforce deforestation laws, while the NGOs oversaw projects to support sustainable communities and livelihoods in the Amazon.

There has been some controversy as to whether the Fund has actually achieved its goals: in the three years before the deal, the rate of deforestation fell dramatically but, after money from the Fund started pouring into the Amazon, the rate remained fairly stationary until 2014, when it began to rise once again. But, in general, the international donors have been pleased with the Fund's performance, and until the Bolsonaro government came to office, the program was expected to continue indefinitely.

Norway has been the main donor (94 percent) to the Amazon Fund, followed by Germany (5 percent), and Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobrás (1 percent). Over the past 11 years, the Norwegians have made, by far, the biggest contribution: R$3.2 billion ($855 million) out of the total of R$3.4 billion ($903 million).

Up till now the Fund has approved 103 projects, with the dispersal of R$1.8 billion ($478 million). These projects will not be affected by Norway's funding freeze because the donors have already provided the funding and the Brazilian Development Bank is contractually obliged to disburse the money until the end of the projects. But there are another 54 projects, currently being analyzed, whose future is far less secure.

One of the projects left stranded by the dissolution of the Fund's committees is Projeto Frutificar, which should be a three-year project, with a budget of R$29 million ($7.3 million), for the production of açai and cacao by 1,000 small-scale farmers in the states of Amapá and Pará. The project was drawn up by the Brazilian NGO IPAM (Institute of Environmental research in Amazonia).

Paulo Moutinho, an IPAM researcher, told Globo newspaper: "Our program was ready to go when the [Brazilian] government asked for changes in the Fund. It's now stuck in the BNDES. Without funding from Norway, we don't know what will happen to it."

Norway is not the only European nation to be reconsidering the way it funds environmental projects in Brazil. Germany has many environmental projects in the Latin American country, apart from its small contribution to the Amazon Fund, and is deeply concerned about the way the rate of deforestation has been soaring this year.

The German environment ministry told Mongabay that its minister, Svenja Schulze, had decided to put financial support for forest and biodiversity projects in Brazil on hold, with €35 million ($39 million) for various projects now frozen.

The ministry explained why: "The Brazilian government's policy in the Amazon raises doubts whether a consistent reduction in deforestation rates is still being pursued. Only when clarity is restored, can project collaboration be continued."

Bauxite mines in Paragominas, Brazil. The Bolsonaro administration is urging new laws that would allow large-scale mining within Brazil's indigenous reserves.

Hydro / Halvor Molland / Flickr

Alternative Amazon Funding

Although there will certainly be disruption in the short-term as a result of the paralysis in the Amazon Fund, the governors of Brazil's Amazon states, which rely on international funding for their environmental projects, are already scrambling to create alternative channels.

In a press release issued yesterday Helder Barbalho, the governor of Pará, the state with the highest number of projects financed by the Fund, said that he will do all he can to maintain and increase his state partnership with Norway.

Barbalho had announced earlier that his state would be receiving €12.5 million ($11.1 million) to run deforestation monitoring centers in five regions of Pará. Barbalho said: "The state governments' monitoring systems are recording a high level of deforestation in Pará, as in the other Amazon states. The money will be made available to those who want to help [the Pará government reduce deforestation] without this being seen as international intervention."

Amazonas state has funding partnerships with Germany and is negotiating deals with France. "I am talking with countries, mainly European, that are interested in investing in projects in the Amazon," said Amazonas governor Wilson Miranda Lima. "It is important to look at Amazônia, not only from the point of view of conservation, but also — and this is even more important — from the point of view of its citizens. It's impossible to preserve Amazônia if its inhabitants are poor."

Signing of the EU-Mercusor Latin American trading agreement earlier this year. The pact still needs to be ratified.

Council of Hemispheric Affairs

Looming International Difficulties

The Bolsonaro government's perceived reluctance to take effective measures to curb deforestation may in the longer-term lead to a far more serious problem than the paralysis of the Amazon Fund.

In June, the European Union and Mercosur, the South American trade bloc, reached an agreement to create the largest trading bloc in the world. If all goes ahead as planned, the pact would account for a quarter of the world's economy, involving 780 million people, and remove import tariffs on 90 percent of the goods traded between the two blocs. The Brazilian government has predicted that the deal will lead to an increase of almost $100 billion in Brazilian exports, particularly agricultural products, by 2035.

But the huge surge this year in Amazon deforestation is leading some European countries to think twice about ratifying the deal. In an interview with Mongabay, the German environment ministry made it very clear that Germany is very worried about events in the Amazon: "We are deeply concerned given the pace of destruction in Brazil … The Amazon Forest is vital for the atmospheric circulation and considered as one of the tipping points of the climate system."

The ministry stated that, for the trade deal to go ahead, Brazil must carry out its commitment under the Paris Climate agreement to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent below the 2005 level by 2030. The German environment ministry said: If the trade deal is to go ahead, "It is necessary that Brazil is effectively implementing its climate change objectives adopted under the [Paris] Agreement. It is precisely this commitment that is expressly confirmed in the text of the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement."

Blairo Maggi, Brazil agriculture minister under the Temer administration, and a major shareholder in Amaggi, the largest Brazilian-owned commodities trading company, has said very little in public since Bolsonaro came to power; he's been "in a voluntary retreat," as he puts it. But Maggi is so concerned about the damage Bolsonaro's off the cuff remarks and policies are doing to international relationships he decided to speak out earlier this week.

Former Brazil Agriculture Minister Blairo Maggi, who has broken a self-imposed silence to criticize the Bolsonaro government, saying that its rhetoric and policies could threaten Brazil's international commodities trade.

Senado Federal / Visualhunt / CC BY

Maggi, a ruralista who strongly supports agribusiness, told the newspaper, Valor Econômico, that, even if the European Union doesn't get to the point of tearing up a deal that has taken 20 years to negotiate, there could be long delays. "These environmental confusions could create a situation in which the EU says that Brazil isn't sticking to the rules." Maggi speculated. "France doesn't want the deal and perhaps it is taking advantage of the situation to tear it up. Or the deal could take much longer to ratify — three, five years."

Such a delay could have severe repercussions for Brazil's struggling economy which relies heavily on its commodities trade with the EU. Analysists say that Bolsonaro's fears over such an outcome could be one reason for his recently announced October meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, another key trading partner.

Maggi is worried about another, even more alarming, potential consequence of Bolsonaro's failure to stem illegal deforestation — Brazil could be hit by a boycott by its foreign customers. "I don't buy this idea that the world needs Brazil … We are only a player and, worse still, replaceable." Maggi warns, "As an exporter, I'm telling you: things are getting very difficult. Brazil has been saying for years that it is possible to produce and preserve, but with this [Bolsonaro administration] rhetoric, we are going back to square one … We could find markets closed to us."

Aerial view of lava flows from the eruption of volcano Kilauea on Hawaii, May 2018. Frizi / iStock / Getty Images

Hawaii's Kilauea volcano could be gearing up for an eruption after a pond of water was discovered inside its summit crater for the first time in recorded history, according to the AP.

Read More Show Less
Gina Lopez, the Philippine secretary of the environment, at a meeting with residents affected by a mine tailing disaster. Keith Schneider

Gina Lopez, a former Philippine environment secretary, philanthropist and eco-warrior, died on Aug. 19 from brain cancer. She was 65.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Trump speaks to contractors at the Shell Chemicals Petrochemical Complex on Aug. 13 in Monaca, Pennsylvania. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

Thousands of union members at a multibillion dollar petrochemical plant outside of Pittsburgh were given a choice last week: Stand and wait for a speech by Donald Trump or take the day off without pay.

Read More Show Less
Regis Lagrange / EyeEm / Getty Images

By Ariane Lang, BSc, MBA

Lemon (Citrus limon) is a common citrus fruit, alongside grapefruits, limes, and oranges (1).

Read More Show Less
A zero-emission electric car in Vail, Colorado on July 31. Sharon Hahn Darlin / CC BY 2.0

By Simon Mui

States across the country are stepping up to make clean cars cheaper and easier to find. Colorado's Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) voted Friday to adopt a Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) program that will increase the availability of electric vehicles in the state, improve air quality and increase transportation affordability.

Read More Show Less