Climate Change

[samagon]

Love it, hate it, believe it, don't believe it, believe we (humans) are the cause, or believe it's natural? Let's discuss!

 

So in the downtown subforum, we got a bit off topic in the mickey lealand thread, and started talking about renewable energy (PV, specifically), this spiraled into global warming, and finally, it's now at the 'what can we do about it stage'...

 

 

Alright I'm really confused about what you just wrote for a few reasons;

1) Lowering quality of life how? What net gains do raising CO2 levels somehow bring? Those are too very bold claims that seem to go against what 97% of scientist (speaking on climate change) say, and you provide no source sooooo..

2) How exactly are those models wrong and, again, proof?

3) In your opinion, it may not be worth it it, but I still don't see where you pulled any information on the projected cost vs benefit issue.


I think it's incredibly naive to vaguely accept the idea of climate change like most of you are doing and simply saying "there's nothing we can do." Im not one for extreme nationalism but...that's so unAmerican...It's supposedly costly so we might as well give up for future generations to deal with it? I mean, that seems to be the de facto opinion on most major issues for us today but climate change isn't one of those issues you just push under the rug and ignore

 

 

I think it's impossible to do anything more than to vaguely accept the idea of climate change. To me, it's like trying to describe the distance between the Earth and Pluto, sure it can be done, but I'll never understand the reality of the distance as anything more than a concept. I'm not a climate scientist, so I don't see all the minutia these guys live every day, I don't understand the complex systems. I take them on their word that what they are saying is true that:

 

A) climate change is real (it's going to get hot)

the climate change we are experiencing is wholly unique compared to other climate change events in that it is anthropogenic.

 

I also tack on to that based on my personal knowledge. I was trying to think of a good analogy yesterday when I was responding to you, and I finally thought of something good enough.

 

the climate is like a huge ship. You point it in a direction and go, if you notice you were on the wrong course, you can make a course change or speed change right now and it may take a little time for it to take effect. Additionally, course changes you previously made will take a little time to take effect. 

 

The climate is much the same way. we've been 'changing the course' of the climate for over a century, and really ramping up that course change in the past 4 or 5 decades, and continue to increase our course change.

 

Unlike a boat, we don't just have a captain that checks his charts, then looks at the stars and says "we're off course, and need to change course, we'll be back on course in x time". No, you have navigators (scientists) telling us we're off course, you've got other navigators (scientists again) telling us no we're on course. Then they tell it to 200 different committees. each of these committees have to decide on their own that the course correction is right. if one decides it's right, but the other 200 don't, maybe we can steer the ship 1/200th back towards being on course, but overall, we're still off course, and probably still going farther off course.

 

Who gets to decide the right path? How are we to all agree that the path chosen is the right one? Short of global marshal law, I don't see enough governments deciding to get on the right course so we (the entire population of the Earth, not just we as in Americans, or Houstonians) aren't continuing to make it worse. So yes, I'm a commie cause I say there really is nothing we can do. Obviously, do things you can on a personal level, grow your own vegetables, eat less meat, plant more trees, get a 250cc motorcycle (80-100mpg, so you use less fuel), better yet, ride a bike, live in a smaller house that uses less electricity to keep cool, turn your thermostat to 80 instead of 74, other than that? Grab some popcorn and watch.

 

Let's not lose hope for the planet and our survival though, there have been some recent observations by scientists to give us hope though, Cod have decided to move from their normal habitat to other areas that offer climate that they are used to. Birds are flying farther north in Canada and staying longer, other animals are adopting different patterns as well. So while yeah, the polar bear may not survive as a species (were they going to survive anyway?), it won't be some mass extinction level event.

 

From an impact standpoint, I think that the biggest impact will be sea level rise. Some insanely high proportion of people are living on various coasts and will be displaced. There's going to be a lot of money spent moving those people, and protecting what can be protected.

[Nate99]

Alright I'm really confused about what you just wrote for a few reasons;

1) Lowering quality of life how? What net gains do raising CO2 levels somehow bring? Those are too very bold claims that seem to go against what 97% of scientist (speaking on climate change) say, and you provide no source sooooo..

2) How exactly are those models wrong and, again, proof?

3) In your opinion, it may not be worth it it, but I still don't see where you pulled any information on the projected cost vs benefit issue.

I think it's incredibly naive to vaguely accept the idea of climate change like most of you are doing and simply saying "there's nothing we can do." Im not one for extreme nationalism but...that's so unAmerican...It's supposedly costly so we might as well give up for future generations to deal with it? I mean, that seems to be the de facto opinion on most major issues for us today but climate change isn't one of those issues you just push under the rug and ignore

 

Places with short or no growing season may be able to support more people, net lower energy usage (we’re outliers here in the heat), higher C02 makes for higher crop yields and less land needed for the same output, fewer people dying from cold, etc, etc. Wherever the cold is a limiting factor it won’t be as much of one.  The old 97% trope is an exaggeration turned in to a soundbite, it was produced by an advocate throwing a dart and painting a bullseye around it.

 

So there are plenty of tradeoffs without even talking about economic cost. Where do we set that thermostat where it is absolutely optimal? The world would never agree what that optimum would be, but if they did, they would not agree on how to achieve it, but if they did, they might not be able to do execute their plan and their plan might not work. You can do something that you feel is directionally beneficial, but you may have just kept that Russian lithium mine that’s dumping its tailings in to a river in business with that Tesla electric car subsidy. Things are not so simple as to be understood and controlled by good intentions.

 

The warming pause that went unpredicted by models has generated tons of press, and those with massive skin in game now saying the extra heat never paused and/or went in to places that haven’t been measured, yet still think that was the only variable that could have possibly been missed and therefore very costly measures should be employed, full stop, debate is over and jeez I’m tired of the FOIA requests.  The same folks telling us that yes indeed our doom is nigh are carrying similar credentials to people saying that drastically reducing our CO2 output won’t do much of any good, so believing either the same flavor of naiveté.  

 

It’s stinky and politicized, you won’t find a reference anywhere that isn’t dripping with agenda driven conclusions backed in to with heavily adjusted and selectively ignored data points, much less anything that looks like proof.  This goes for people that advocate for either side of the issue. I honestly don’t care to wade through it any more than I already have, but I can smell the politics enough to honestly feel that my dismissiveness is warranted. I can find really smart sounding studies that explain very completely and competently why the other guy is full of crap, but at the end of the day, people are only going to see what they want to see, especially when understanding the totality of it requires more education than literally anyone on the planet holds.

 

Reaching any conclusion on something as complicated as modeling the entire planet’s climate is going to involve innumerable estimates, inferences, extrapolations and corollaries from really diverse and huge sets of data.  It’s something to study, to be sure, but once the politicians got a hold of it and convinced people to fear it, it took on a life of its own.  The history of scientific doomsday predictions alone is enough for me to not want to give up huge chunks of economic value. To me, whether one side or the other is right doesn’t matter so much when one can’t even talk about cost/benefit of taking action.

 

I’m in the boat of, what can we do to have the best shot to live better? Driving electric rates through the roof isn’t it, but that’s just my opinion.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Nate99

[samagon]

I agree with your sentiment. If we, as the USA, and the EU were to start charging extra for co2, we're only about 20% of co2 output. What does this tax achieve? It doesn't slow down the rate of co2 output and even if it changes habits, it will reduce the cost of whatever we reduce on a global scale and other countries with less care pick up where we left off.

It's two very complex issues, one being the climate, the other being 7 billion 98.6es trying to survive via the easiest means.

[Ross]

I don't think that potentially destroying our economies to try and achieve some nebulous CO2 reduction goal that may or may not work is wise. We have no idea as to what the impacts are, in either direction. We also come across as trying to keep the third world from achieving the same high standard of living as us, based on science that is not always on firm ground.

 

A few things to think about:

 

We keep hearing about fractions of a degree changes in global temperatures. Is it even possible to measure the temperature of the Earth that accurately?

Have temperatures been adjusted to account for heat island effects on recording stations that were originally located in rural areas, but are now in urban areas full of concrete and other heat trapping materials

How much faith can we put on sea water temperature measurements from 100 years ago that were made by dropping a bucket overboard, then putting a thermometer in ht bucket when it was pulled up to the deck? How accurate were those thermometers

How accurate are the measurements made at the cooling water intakes of US Navy ships in more recent times?

Is there a model that accounts for the Medieval Warm period, when crops were grown in Greenland?

 

 

[brian0123]

As someone with Asthma, I appreciate clean air since it.. well... let's me live better. I think everyone benefits from being able to breathe... so to me the science debate detracts from the simple fact that we need clean air to live. People against reducing air pollution levels (who can't get beyond their political beliefs) are just plain moronic and annoying. Here's a tip for you non-Asthma people... try breathing through a straw for a couple hours and tell me how you feel. That's how it feels on days when smog engulfs our city. People in China are experiencing these issues now (who don't even have Asthma) because they allowed business to trump health.

[Ross]

As someone with Asthma, I appreciate clean air since it.. well... let's me live better. I think everyone benefits from being able to breathe... so to me the science debate detracts from the simple fact that we need clean air to live. People against reducing air pollution levels (who can't get beyond their political beliefs) are just plain moronic and annoying. Here's a tip for you non-Asthma people... try breathing through a straw for a couple hours and tell me how you feel. That's how it feels on days when smog engulfs our city. People in China are experiencing these issues now (who don't even have Asthma) because they allowed business to trump health.

 

There's a difference between CO2 levels and the particulates, ozone, and reactive gases like sulfur dioxide that exacerbate asthma. CO2 isn't really a pollutant in the standard sense of the word. You can reduce particulate pollution without affecting CO2 levels at all.

 

This isn't a matter of allowing business to triumph over health. We cannot currently reduce CO2 emissions to the levels the climate change folks think is necessary without completely destroying our economy. Non-carbon based energy sources,other than nuclear, are not anywhere close to being economically viable at the scale necessary to replace hydrocarbons.

 

[Nate99]

There's a difference between CO2 levels and the particulates, ozone, and reactive gases like sulfur dioxide that exacerbate asthma. CO2 isn't really a pollutant in the standard sense of the word. You can reduce particulate pollution without affecting CO2 levels at all.

 

This isn't a matter of allowing business to triumph over health. We cannot currently reduce CO2 emissions to the levels the climate change folks think is necessary without completely destroying our economy. Non-carbon based energy sources,other than nuclear, are not anywhere close to being economically viable at the scale necessary to replace hydrocarbons.

 

 

My idea for a "carbonless" energy policy would be lots of nuke plants that can provide greater than base load generation. When the grid doesn't need the excess, you turn on desalination plants and make fresh water and hydrogen for fuel cell transportation. Who knows if you could actually get it all to balance out, but it is not dependent on anything that doesn't yet exist being invented, apart from hydrogen distribution and storage.

 

It wouldn't be cheap though.

[BigFootsSocks]

There's a difference between CO2 levels and the particulates, ozone, and reactive gases like sulfur dioxide that exacerbate asthma. CO2 isn't really a pollutant in the standard sense of the word. You can reduce particulate pollution without affecting CO2 levels at all.

This isn't a matter of allowing business to triumph over health. We cannot currently reduce CO2 emissions to the levels the climate change folks think is necessary without completely destroying our economy. Non-carbon based energy sources,other than nuclear, are not anywhere close to being economically viable at the scale necessary to replace hydrocarbons.

Nate, I'm going to respond to your post tomorrow when im not on mobile, but I audibly lol'd at this post.

How is "it's not economically/technologically feasible now so it's not worth it to pursue" even an argument?

[Ross]

Nate, I'm going to respond to your post tomorrow when im not on mobile, but I audibly lol'd at this post.

How is "it's not economically/technologically feasible now so it's not worth it to pursue" even an argument?

 

Did I say "not worth it to pursue"? I don't think I did. I still believe those who expect climate to remain as is are dreaming, even without any man made impacts. Climate is always changing. 20,000 years ago, much of the world was covered with ice, and sea levels were upwards of 300 feet lower. We are just fortunate to be living in one of the benign phases.

 

I don't think it's worth spending a ton of tax money on subsidies to politically connected fraudsters who don't have a clue as to how to research and develop new technologies. As research proceeds in its own plodding fashion, there will be discoveries that move alternate energy technology forward.

[samagon]

problem with nuclear (aside from the fear) is that you're talking decades from concept to deployment. You think that building on main street downtown is being built slow! Assume we could get a plan approved today, it's at least 2030 before the first plant comes online.

 

by that time it's probably obsolete, some new technology for collecting wind power, or solar energy, or hydro-thermal energy from the earth's crust.

 

But that's the gambit, right now we're kind of just waiting for technology, and that's really the theory behind doing the whole carbon tax thing, by making it more expensive, it will open up more development into other sources, development not just to come up with new ideas, but to make current ideas cheaper and more affordable.

 

There's no money in developing other energy because what we have is so inexpensive, raise the price (artificially, or otherwise) and people start exploring other alternatives.

 

You can see a microcosm of this in cars. When gasoline is cheap, people choose a prius, or a volt because it's a lifestyle choice. IE not many people look for alternatives. When gasoline gets expensive, you can't find a Toyota dealer to order one without waiting 6 months for delivery. When people are looking for alternatives, money gets invested in the development of said alternatives.

 

Would carbon tax on energy suck for a while? Absolutely, but you can also bet that development of alternate sources would ramp up and make those alternatives cost effective that much quicker.

 

Hell, isn't solar on the cusp of making sense on a per house basis right now? Jack my electricity bill by $100 a month and boy howdy, I might just buy a set of solar cells, an inverter and tie back into the grid to sell what I don't use. if enough people do this, then the demand for coal goes down, and it gets cheaper all over again because demand is low.

Edited July 17, 2015 by samagon

[IronTiger]

Did I say "not worth it to pursue"? I don't think I did. I still believe those who expect climate to remain as is are dreaming, even without any man made impacts. Climate is always changing. 20,000 years ago, much of the world was covered with ice, and sea levels were upwards of 300 feet lower. We are just fortunate to be living in one of the benign phases.

 

I don't think it's worth spending a ton of tax money on subsidies to politically connected fraudsters who don't have a clue as to how to research and develop new technologies. As research proceeds in its own plodding fashion, there will be discoveries that move alternate energy technology forward.

I was about to say (before a jug of water spilled on my power strip) that you shouldn't misquote someone using actual quotes because that's disingenuous. I think it's still ambiguous if BFS misinterpreted what Ross or deliberately skewed the quote to make a strawman.

 

In any case, alternative energy (sans nuclear, which is a third category in itself and geothermal, which can't be done on a large scale due to the specific geography it needs) is still inefficient in terms of kilowatts per hour, and most of the research done is by big oil (times of prosperity lend itself to other side projects). Pouring money into alternative energy startups isn't a winning strategy. If you're an independently wealthy investor, fine, it's your money, but for federal dollars it's a surefire way to waste taxpayer money. Reality is that the kilowatt/hour for solar and wind is still a fraction of fossil fuels, and those types of plants require more land and a climate that supports it (which is why desert climates are more suited toward solar power). 

 

Secondly,the only people that claim that (and I'm paraphrasing here) the scientific community agrees about man-made global warming is politicians.

[gmac]

I love how cavalier some people seem to be about slapping a carbon tax on. You do realize this would absolutely crush and decimate the poorer segments of our society, yes? You ok with that side-effect?

 

Also, do you truly believe that "Big Oil" isn't hedging its bets by looking into future energy sources? Are they so shortsighted that they will just throw up their corporate hands when oil runs out and say, "Gee, guess that's it for us folks! Been great!"

[BigFootsSocks]

Secondly,the only people that claim that (and I'm paraphrasing here) the scientific community agrees about man-made global warming is politicians.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ok

[samagon]

"Big Oil" spends their research money developing whatever will net them the greatest profit. Mainly short term profit. Yeah, I'm sure they all have some 'black ops' type stuff that gets a fraction of their research budget, but the vast majority of research money goes towards finding more efficient ways of getting product out of the ground. Publicly traded companies (shareholders who want to see their portfolio increase) frown upon money being budgeted for something that will be profitable at some unknown time in the future.

 

Most of your research into alternatives (and even battery tech) comes from colleges and universities.

 

Rice is actually pretty good at getting in the news with all sorts of research in this stuff.

Edited July 17, 2015 by samagon

[BigFootsSocks]

I love how cavalier some people seem to be about slapping a carbon tax on. You do realize this would absolutely crush and decimate the poorer segments of our society, yes? You ok with that side-effect?

Also, do you truly believe that "Big Oil" isn't hedging its bets by looking into future energy sources? Are they so shortsighted that they will just throw up their corporate hands when oil runs out and say, "Gee, guess that's it for us folks! Been great!"

*Source required

[BigFootsSocks]

Did I say "not worth it to pursue"? I don't think I did. I still believe those who expect climate to remain as is are dreaming, even without any man made impacts. Climate is always changing. 20,000 years ago, much of the world was covered with ice, and sea levels were upwards of 300 feet lower. We are just fortunate to be living in one of the benign phases.

I don't think it's worth spending a ton of tax money on subsidies to politically connected fraudsters who don't have a clue as to how to research and develop new technologies. As research proceeds in its own plodding fashion, there will be discoveries that move alternate energy technology forward.

This is what I was referring to;

We cannot currently reduce CO2 emissions to the levels the climate change folks think is necessary without completely destroying our economy.

As for you IT, none of what I have said or quoted is a strawman, and that last paragraph is so overwhelmingly wrong I had to go outside my office to laugh so as to not disturb my coworkers.

Edited July 17, 2015 by BigFootsSocks

[Sunstar]

As with most political debates, there are two extremes on this issue: one that sees climate change as a very real and existential threat to humanity and are willing to sacrifice whatever economic or social principles necessary to stop it, and the other that don't feel it's a significant threat and prefer to rely on the free market to determine how to address it, to the extent that it needs to be addressed at all.

 

Then there's the majority, the folks in the middle that haven't made up their mind and won't until either the scientific community stop talking about it, or they see Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse coming. In other words, it's either not a problem, or it is but we won't try to do anything about it until it's too late. 

 

I'm not trying to be dramatic on that last point, just depicting the narrative as I understand it. 

 

 

Have a great weekend everyone 

[samagon]

As with most political debates, there are two extremes on this issue: one that sees climate change as a very real and existential threat to humanity and are willing to sacrifice whatever economic or social principles necessary to stop it, and the other that don't feel it's a significant threat and prefer to rely on the free market to determine how to address it, to the extent that it needs to be addressed at all.

 

Then there's the majority, the folks in the middle that haven't made up their mind and won't until either the scientific community stop talking about it, or they see Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse coming. In other words, it's either not a problem, or it is but we won't try to do anything about it until it's too late. 

 

I'm not trying to be dramatic on that last point, just depicting the narrative as I understand it. 

 

 

Have a great weekend everyone 

 

The 4 horsemen already came in the mid 80s.

 

You know, Ric Flair, Arn Anderson, Ole Anderson and Tully Blanchard?

[samagon]

This is interesting:

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

 

 

 

The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, brings new importance to a feedback loop in the ocean near Antarctica that results in cooler freshwater from melting glaciers forcing warmer, saltier water underneath the ice sheets, speeding up the melting rate.

 

Not yet peer reviewed, but it basically states that we should expect at least 10 feet of sea level rise in as short as 50 years. It doesn't necessarily state that the 50 years is starting today, or what, but that may be part of the actual study?

 

10 feet rise though, if true..

 

How would this affect the Houston ship channel? Billions of dollars, I'd imagine.

[BigFootsSocks]

Maybe those Panamax ships will be able to come in?

[samagon]

lol, positive impact!

[august948]

 

Number of 'mosquito days' in Houston falls since 1970s due to extremely high temperatures

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/health/article/mosquito-bite-heat-humidity-zeka-18182456.php

[samagon]

too bad it's too hot outside for me to enjoy the lack of mosquitoes. 

[samagon]

interesting topic on a subject that could potentially be very related.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/housing/article/houston-hurricane-harvey-lawsuit-apartments-judge-18197693.php#photo-22835269

basically, the city is condemning an apartment complex that flooded, but the apartment complex wants to rebuild, so a lawsuit happened.

my opinion is pretty irrelevant to what happens, but it would seem to me that if the government is giving them funds, then it should be to buy out the property and that's the end of it. if the owner isn't seeking government funds, then the owner shouldn't be forced to sell. seems pretty simple in my mind.

[editor]

3 hours ago, samagon said:

basically, the city is condemning an apartment complex that flooded, but the apartment complex wants to rebuild, so a lawsuit happened.

This is happening more and more, and I expect that some laws will have to be passed to give guidance before the courts get flooded with similar suits.

There's a lot of talk about moving entire towns out of the way of flooding.  It's already happening in Louisiana and Washington. 

 

 

[samagon]

On 7/14/2023 at 1:00 PM, editor said:

This is happening more and more, and I expect that some laws will have to be passed to give guidance before the courts get flooded with similar suits.

There's a lot of talk about moving entire towns out of the way of flooding.  It's already happening in Louisiana and Washington. 

 

 

I comprehend it, it just doesn't make sense to me.

if the government offers them money to buy them out, and they don't want to sell, then why is the issue being forced?

issue them a variance that says no FEMA money will ever be available, good luck with insurance, give them one more chance, then wash your hands of it.

it's already costing the public money if they sell, but if they are forced, then that's going to cost so much more in lawsuits. 

[editor]

6 hours ago, samagon said:

I comprehend it, it just doesn't make sense to me.

if the government offers them money to buy them out, and they don't want to sell, then why is the issue being forced?

issue them a variance that says no FEMA money will ever be available, good luck with insurance, give them one more chance, then wash your hands of it.

it's already costing the public money if they sell, but if they are forced, then that's going to cost so much more in lawsuits. 

Since it was 100% voucher housing, maybe the city didn't want to be in the position of knowingly putting people in harm's way?

[samagon]

that makes more sense.

[s3mh]

2 hours ago, editor said:

Since it was 100% voucher housing, maybe the city didn't want to be in the position of knowingly putting people in harm's way?

There was a lot going on in this case.  Arbor Court flooded twice (Tax Day and Harvey).  When they applied for permits to make repairs after Harvey, they tried to low ball the amount of repairs needed to keep the permits from being considered "substantial damage", which would allow the City to deny permit applications based on flood plain issues.  The City didn't buy Arbor Court's low ball damage estimate and considered an alternate FEMA estimate that brought the repairs within the "substantial damage" provisions.  The City denied the permits on those grounds.  Arbor Court alleged that the City had always wanted the land for recreation/flood control and sought $32 mil for a taking.  In short, the Court held that there was no taking and that the City was well within its police power to deny the permits on the grounds of the flood plain issue.  The city can still acquire the property by eminent domain, but that will put it in front of a County Court judge.  Harris Count Court at Law judges are pretty much put in office to support the City and County on eminent domain lawsuits.  In other words, you get a lot less from the CC at Law judge in eminent domain than you do from a Federal judge in a takings case.  The entire opinion from the judge is below.

If Montpelier, VT can flood, you can bet that Houston is going to get another big flood in the not so distant future.  The flood prone areas in Houston need to be turned into flood mitigation retention/detention ponds, etc.  Letting people rebuild in areas that flood over and over is just like letting children play with guns.  We need every inch of flood control that we can get in Houston and need to get people out of flood prone areas so no one has to risk their lives trying to get them out.

 

https://casetext.com/case/dm-arbor-court-ltd-v-the-city-of-houston-1

[trymahjong]

Citizens Environmental Coalition remembers Hurricane Harvey

Photo courtesy of National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service

by Samantha Page CEC Newsletter Editor

On the anniversary of Hurricane Harvey, we reflect on the tremendous impact this natural disaster had on the lives of millions and the environment. This catastrophic Category 4 storm made landfall on August 25, 2017, leaving a monumental mark on the Gulf Coast and serving as a saddening reminder of the power and unpredictability of hurricanes.    Harvey unleashed its fury in the form of torrential rainfall and relentless flooding. The storm's stalled movement over the Houston metropolitan area exacerbated its impact, leading to flooding and displacing thousands of people from their homes.   Harvey's record-breaking rainfall, with some areas receiving over 60 inches (152 centimeters) of rain, led to widespread flooding of homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure. The human toll was heartbreaking, with dozens of lives lost and countless others upended by the disaster. The financial cost of the damage reached an estimated $125 billion, making it one of the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history, second to Hurricane Katrina.   The environmental consequences of Hurricane Harvey were far-reaching and continue to be felt years later. The flooding released pollutants into waterways and soil, posing risks to aquatic ecosystems and human health. The storm also disrupted oil refineries and chemical plants, leading to hazardous spills and releasing pollutants into the air.   However, Harvey also highlighted the resilience of both nature and communities. Wetlands and coastal marshes, natural buffers against storms, absorbed some of the floodwaters, mitigating the overall impact. Additionally, communities came together in remarkable ways, demonstrating the strength of human spirit in times of crisis. The disaster prompted discussions on urban planning, flood mitigation strategies, and the importance of climate-resilient infrastructure.   As we remember the anniversary of Hurricane Harvey, let it be a reminder of our shared vulnerability and the importance of collective action. By learning from the past, we can forge a more resilient and sustainable future for ourselves and the planet.