Translate

Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts

Saturday, March 21, 2026

Surviving the State: Policy Neglect in the Rio Grande Valley

Friends:

Bekah Hinojosa’s powerful account of life in the Rio Grande Valley reveals what many policymakers refuse to confront: for marginalized communities, “disaster” is not episodic—it is structural. In a region marked by chronic underinvestment, failing infrastructure, and deep poverty—conditions disproportionately affecting Brown, Indigenous, and Latino populations—power outages, unsafe water, and extreme heat are not anomalies but predictable outcomes of long-standing policy neglect. Public resources have not flowed where they are most needed; instead, as Hinojosa notes, the region sees massive investments in border enforcement infrastructure while basic systems—electricity, water, housing—remain fragile or absent. Climate change intensifies these conditions, but it is the state’s uneven allocation of resources and accountability that renders entire communities perpetually vulnerable.

In response, community organizers have developed “Just Recovery Kits”—tools originally designed for emergencies but now used for daily survival. Their very necessity is an indictment of the state. When residents must rely on water filters to make tap water safe, solar chargers to compensate for unreliable electricity, and mutual aid networks to fill systemic gaps, we are no longer talking about resilience alone—we are witnessing the privatization of survival under conditions of abandonment. 

Hinojosa’s piece makes clear that what is often framed as community strength is, in fact, a response to policy failure—which is good to remember lest we romanticize community. In the Rio Grande Valley, survival has become a form of environmental justice work precisely because the state has failed to guarantee the basic conditions for life.

-Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.


We Built Disaster Kits for Our Rio Grande Valley Neighbors—They Use Them for Daily Survival

As climate 'shocks' increasingly puncture wealthier parts of the U.S., they lengthen like a shadow across this borderlands region.

Bekah Hinojosa with disaster kit and checklists. Image: Venisha Colón
Published:February 13, 2026, 9:21 am
Last updated:February 19, 2026, 4:20 pm

Bekah Hinojosa with disaster kit and checklist. Photo credit: Venisha Colón

On a typical sunny South Texas day, I made a run to the grocery store, H-E-B, near my apartment in Brownsville, Texas. I walked around, and just as I stretched my arm to grab some sausage from the freezer everything went pitch black in front of my eyes.

“Did I die?” I thought. “Is this the afterlife?” When I heard cries from other shoppers and the lights switched on, I saw people’s concerned faces.

This was far from my first power outage in Brownsville, one of many communities stretched across the Rio Grande Valley, which itself spans four counties along the Rio Grande River and the Gulf of Mexico.

Our combined population of about 1.43 million is often referred to by the Wall Street Journal as one of the poorest regions in the country. Brownsville was recently ranked the second “neediest” city in the U.S. Tax dollars don’t reliably trickle back to build basic infrastructure. Instead: We get billion-dollar border walls.

Power goes out with gusts of wind, a storm, or high consumption during extreme temperatures.

Water service is even worse. It’s not uncommon for homes or businesses in Brownsville and throughout South Texas to lose power or face other infrastructure issues, such as water shortages and boil-water advisories. In some parts, people lack access to running water or electricity entirely.

The Brownsville area suffers from crumbling infrastructure due to inadequate funding, mishandling of city resources, and various forms of exploitation. The makeup of this South Texas region is predominantly brown, Indigenous, or Latine. Poverty is an epidemic.



Elements included in a typical disaster kit. Image: Venisha Colón




















As a local economist summarized recently:

“42.2 percent of children in McAllen … and 39.2 percent in Brownsville-Harlingen live below the poverty line, and many of them live in a chronic state of food, health, and housing insecurity.”

Climate change impacts, such as flooding and extreme heat, make it worse.

Texas has had a record number of state-declared disasters and is gaining a national reputation for frequent disaster declarations, such as those from the Texas Winter Storm of 2022 and Hurricane Harvey in 2017.

Cameron County Emergency Management’s website says that between 1953 and 2024 Texas has suffered 374 disaster declarations; that’s almost 6 disasters a year. The number of disasters and their extremity due to climate change are increasing, as we’ve witnessed in just the last three years, Winter Storm Uri and the devastating flood that dropped over 20 inches of rain in the Rio Grande Valley last year. These rising crises have forced families and organizations to devise their own solutions for daily survival, and also during extreme weather.

I’m from the Rio Grande Valley and have lived here for several decades, and I have experienced six devastating tropical storms. My late grandma, who was multigenerational from the Rio Grande Valley, taught me to help your neighbor. She met a man from Mexico walking the streets of Mercedes, Texas, who needed a dollar, and she brought him to her house for dinner and a safe place to sleep.

A person helping another is essential; however, a group of us realized that as disasters were rising, different resources were needed. I became a founding member of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, which focuses on ways to contact those most impacted by disasters and to create ways for immediate aid.
One of the projects that we have developed is a Just Recovery Kit. We built these kits for our neighbors with climate crises in mind, but found many needed them for daily survival.

Each kit may include a high-quality water filtration system, large jugs, a carbon monoxide detector, non-toxic insect spray, a solar battery charging system, gloves, personal protective equipment (PPE), and more. The Just Recovery Kits designed by our members are assembled for each family based on their needs and include contact information should they require maintenance.

Bryan Parras, an environmental justice advocate based in Houston with Another Gulf Is Possible is the lead designer of the kits. He told me how quickening hurricane disasters on the upper Texas coast inspired him.

“It would be in Texas and then Louisiana, starting with Katrina, then Rita, then Ike, Gustav,” Parras said. “It could go on and on.”

South Texas Environmental Justice Network (SOTXEJN) members distribute kits to families at an Emergency Preparedness Conference in Alamo, TX, in 2023.

Like Bryan, I’ve also experienced an increase in disasters on the lower coast. The area has mandatory cooling shelters for the high temperatures, but never enough. Last year, a family was found dead in their home in Brownsville due to extreme heat and lack of air conditioning. Ask anyone in the region, and they have a personal disaster survival story about living in South Texas.

My colleague’s car filled with water during a thunderstorm; my father was rescued as his car was being washed away.

My apartment was without electricity for three days during Texas’ winter storm Uri.

One summer, my cheap shoes fell apart because of the hot asphalt.

These disasters have severe consequences in a region doubly marked by the daily disaster of poverty. Not only are basic needs lacking, but it can be challenging to find items needed to prepare for or recover from a disaster.

Bryan explained to me how, over the years, the Just Recovery Kits evolved from a disaster kit to one that improves people’s daily needs.

“A lot of our communities are starting in a place where they are behind most of the population; it’s much harder for them to recover from disasters,” he said.

“But if we have products to help them inch their way up to a more equitable space, then that’s the whole point of the kits—to improve their quality of life, their health, their capacity for thinking about emergencies, and to provide them with those things that are unaffordable or not a priority: ‘I have to buy groceries before masks, sorry.”

Dina Nuñez, a community organizer in Brownsville has been forced to rely on the kits daily. She said she doesn’t trust the water coming out of the faucet from the Brownsville Public Utilities Board (or BPUB). Water here mostly meets federal drinking-water standards, but there are ongoing debates over safety still. The Environmental Working Group lists a variety of contaminants found in the water that are known cancer causers.

“I use it [the kit] frequently, especially the water filter, I use it every day,” she told me in Spanish. “We know the water is contaminated, for sure. There was actually an agency that came to my house to do water testing. They tested the faucet, our water mill, and it came back that the city water is actually highly contaminated.”

She went on to say that rising extreme heat means the public utility, which is already failing her with bad water, is also continuously raising the cost of electricity.

“They [the public utility] still don’t want to be responsible,” she said.

“It’s like they don’t actually filter the water. And there are high bill costs coming up. During high heat times, the [kilowatt] usage charge goes up whether we use it or not—BPUB keeps raising those in our monthly electricity bills.”

South TX EJ Network has distributed 200 kits to families living in Cameron and Hidalgo counties over the last three years. Our organization also plans to build a network, or “resilience hub,” of families with kits who can receive and disseminate vital emergency information and help others in their neighborhoods.

There’s a need to inform the public utility of ways to meet the community’s needs. Until improvements are made, the South TX EJ Network will continue brainstorming solutions, such as providing kits to support the families who need them.



Sunday, August 24, 2025

Don’t Burn the Hemp Bridge: A Climate and Health Solution Rooted in Texas Soil by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Don’t Burn the Hemp Bridge: A Climate and Health Solution Rooted in Texas Soil

by 

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.

Texas policy on hemp is at an inflection point. As the debate fixates on hemp-derived THC, it obscures the larger public-health, climate, and rural-economy stakes. 

Since vetoing an all-THC ban in June, Gov. Greg Abbott has advocated a stringent regulatory framework—age limits, potency caps, testing, and enforcement—built to withstand court challenges, while Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate have continued to advance near-total prohibitions such as SB 6 in the second special session (Guo, 2025; Malenfant, 2025).

On the health side, a key resource is the National Academies’ comprehensive review, The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids, which synthesizes evidence on benefits, risks, and research needs (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2017). 

Separate from that report, I am fascinated by the fact that our bodies also produce their own cannabinoids—“endocannabinoids”—that help regulate mood, stress responses, pain, and inflammation (Lu & Mackie, 2016). And yes, the classic “runner’s high” appears to be driven in part by endocannabinoid signaling (Fuss et al., 2015).

Public-health experts and many Texas stakeholders warn that prohibition doesn’t make communities safer—it makes them vulnerable. Outright bans typically displace sales into unregulated channels, where age checks, lab tests, and labels vanish; advocates instead argue for targeted rules that limit youth access and inform consumers (Simpson & Keemahill, 2025; Neill Harris, 2025)

As one Texas Tribune report noted during this year’s debates, opposition included veterans, caregivers, and older adults who stressed practical access—paired with tighter rules to curb synthetics and youth marketing (Simpson & Keemahill, 2025). 

The lesson isn’t new: a century after alcohol Prohibition, reporting shows bans pushed drinking into unregulated markets—sometimes into poisoned industrial alcohol that killed thousands (Blum estimate, as cited in Dowd, 2019)—while fueling organized crime, overwhelming enforcement, and producing a surge in illegal “speakeasies” (Dowd, 2019). Speakeasies were illicit, often membership- or password-only drinking rooms hidden behind ordinary storefronts or in back rooms and basements. 

Smart regulation works. Age restrictions, potency caps, child-safe packaging, and rigorous lab testing help keep intoxicating products out of kids’ hands and ensure consumers know what they’re getting. Abbott’s veto and subsequent guidance emphasized exactly this approach—enforceable rules that preserve a lawful market while protecting public safety (Guo, 2025).

Meanwhile, the environmental and economic stakes couldn’t be higher. Hemp is a fast-growing, low-input crop that fits Texas’ drought-prone conditions and diversified rotations. Beyond the farm, Central Texas builders are piloting hemp-lime “hempcrete” for lower-carbon construction, while Texas researchers are advancing drought-tolerant fiber and grain varieties—signs of a broader materials and agri-tech ecosystem with real local traction (Curtin, 2024a; Curtin, 2024b). For rural Texans, this isn’t just about climate; it’s about opportunity. Every time we threaten prohibition, we freeze investment, strand farmers, and stall innovation.

Texas doesn’t have to choose between chaos and prohibition. We can regulate intoxicating hemp products responsibly and supercharge the non-intoxicating value chain. That means processing grants, university research and development, and public procurement—pilot hemp-lime in state buildings; prioritize hemp fiber for erosion control and packaging; and support farmers who want to grow for climate, not controversy. If we care about children, climate, and communities, don’t burn the hemp bridge—build it.

References

Curtin, K. (2024a, April 12). The Austin Chronic: Former Ag Commissioner candidate Susan Hays is building a hempcrete house. The Austin Chronicle. https://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2024-04-12/the-austin-chronic-former-ag-commissioner-candidate-susan-hays-is-building-a-hempcrete-house

Curtin, K. (2024b, October 4). The Austin Chronic: Texas A&M’s hemp breeding program adds drought-resistant genetics to the national collection. The Austin Chronicle. https://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2024-10-04/the-austin-chronic-texas-aams-hemp-breeding-program-adds-drought-resistant-genetics-to-the-national-/

Dowd, K. (2019, January 17). 100 years ago: What Prohibition looked like in America. Houston Chronicle. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/photos-of-prohibition-1919-america-speakeasy-13523929.php

Guo, K. (2025, June 22). Gov. Greg Abbott vetoes THC ban, calls for regulation instead. Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/22/texas-thc-ban-bill-greg-abbott-veto-senate-bill-3/

Fuss, J., Steinle, J., Bindila, L., Auer, M. K., Kirchherr, H., Lutz, B., & Gass, P. (2015). A runner’s high depends on cannabinoid receptors in mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(42), 13105–13108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514996112

Lu, H.-C., & Mackie, K. (2016). An introduction to the endogenous cannabinoid system. Biological Psychiatry, 79(7), 516–525. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26698193/

Malenfant, M. (2025, August 20). Have THC laws changed in Texas? Here’s a 2025 guide. Austin American-Statesman. https://www.statesman.com/news/article/thc-ban-texas-special-session-august-2025-20824050.php

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24625/the-health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids-the-current-state

Neill Harris, K. (2025, August 21). A THC ban won’t make Texans safer. Better hemp laws would. Houston Chronicle. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/thc-texas-ban-hemp-laws-20826232.php

Simpson, S., & Keemahill, D. (2025, July 22). THC-related poison control calls tripled in Texas after hemp became legal. Experts say there’s more to the story. Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/07/22/texas-marijuana-hemp-data-poison-control-overdose/

Monday, May 19, 2025

From Dystopia to Texas: Let's NOT Let Fiction Become Our Reality—Hands Off our Colleges and Universities!

 Friends:

I owe this post—and my refusal to stay silent—to my grandchildren. They are the reason I continue to show up, speak out, join in community, build community-based institutions and resist the authoritarian drift we are witnessing in Texas. Yes, grandma is busy, but she has a special purpose in life and she is living it.

I just saw the movie, 2073, that features a grandmother that the viewer never sees because she was taken up, disappeared, for openly challenging the system. It was her work. It resonated. 

You can watch the movie on Max, Fandango, or Prime. It's definitely a doomsday, dystopian vision of what could be if we do not seriously work together across difference—not just locally, but globally—to address the current climate crisis we're in and the extreme, undue influence of the "Tech Bros"—the billionaire class—on democracy.

This is what we see playing out right now in the Texas legislature. There was a voucher amendment that would have submitted the vote to all Texans and advocates were hoping that seven or so Republicans would vote against, but that what allegedly happened is that they all got a call from President Trump (I heard this from two sources), and except for two Republicans, Dade Phelan and Rep. VanDeaver, they voted this bill to passage. 

After all, they, like the rest of us already knew that if vouchers were submitted to a vote by the public, Greg Abbott and pro-voucher Republicans would lose. Never mind democracy or what should be the democratic purposes of government. These rural Republican representatives, in particular, just sold their communities down the river. 

Now, here we are fighting against censorship, legislative takeover, and the Texas House panel cut us out from testifying!

What the dystopian film 2073 imagines as speculative, futuristic fiction—a regime that silences dissent through surveillance, bureaucratic control, and ideological conformity—is no longer fiction for those of us in Texas fighting for academic freedom. Senate Bill 37 operates with the same chilling logic: it punishes educators for teaching uncomfortable truths, strips faculty of shared governance, and closes public testimony before most people even have a chance to speak. 

In a press conference last Thursday afternoon, many students a faculty spoke up. Texas AFT’s Amanda Garcia, a recent graduate from UT Austin, lays out SB 37’s harm in stark, unequivocal terms: 

“This is not a bill we can risk cleaning up in the next legislative session. It will impact our students and teachers for the worse forever.”

Like the state in 2073, this legislature justifies censorship in the name of order and efficiency, but we know better. These are not neutral decisions—they are calculated efforts to control knowledge, erase histories, and shut down the very conversations that make education meaningful and genuinely helpful to a racial/ethnic and gender-diverse society.

What is happening in Texas is not just an attack on faculty—it is an attack on democracy itself. And we cannot afford to meet this moment with silence. We must name it, challenge it, and refuse to comply with the slow drift into authoritarianism. 

All of this is unfolding at a time when we face overlapping crises—none more urgent than the accelerating climate emergency. Instead of silencing educators and dismantling democratic institutions, our leaders should be confronting the existential threats that endanger all of us, especially our children and grandchildren.

On a positive note, there is still time.

-Angela Valenzuela

Faculty and students blast Texas House panel for limiting testimony on bill that targets state universities

The House's higher education committee closed registration to testify on Senate Bill 37 less than half an hour after the hearing started. About 20 people said they didn't get to address lawmakers.


University students and faculty gather at the Texas Capitol’s outdoor rotunda on May 15, 2025, to speak against Senate Bill 37, which would reshape how schools pick new courses and hire administrators. 
Credit: Lorianne Willett/The Texas Tribune


Pauline Strong wanted to speak to lawmakers last week about how a bill they’re considering would make her think twice when discussing sensitive topics with her anthropology students at the University of Texas at Austin. But she had to drop off her grandchildren at school first.

Despite rushing to the Texas Capitol afterward, she missed the window to register to testify against Senate Bill 37 by a few minutes.

Strong, who testified last session in opposition to a bill banning diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in higher ed, didn’t expect registration to end so early this time.

“It was disappointing, it was surprising, it was disheartening,” Strong said. “And I’m someone who came from Austin. There were lots of people who were driving from Houston or other parts of the state who left very early in the morning and arrived too late to testify.”

Dozens of students and professors like Strong, who were unable to testify against a bill they fear could limit the free exchange of ideas on college campuses, voiced their frustration on Thursday over losing one of their few chances to address lawmakers directly.

“This is not a bill we can risk cleaning up in the next legislative session. It will impact our students and teachers for the worse forever,” said Amanda Garcia with the Texas American Federation of Teachers.

SB 37 would limit faculty’s influence on academic decisions and give university systems’ regents, who are political appointees, more power to decide what curricula are taught, as well as which administrators are hired at the state’s public colleges and universities.

It would also establish another way for universities to be investigated for breaking state law — and potentially lose funding at a time when they are already facing significant financial headwinds.

SB 37, which was passed by the Senate last month, was one of 10 bills scheduled for a public hearing in the House Higher Education Committee on May 6. During committee hearings, lawmakers debate the contents of a bill and invite witnesses to comment on the proposal. They also give the general public an opportunity to share their thoughts on the legislation.

Rep. Terry M. Wilson, the Georgetown Republican who chairs the committee, started the hearing just after 8 a.m. with an announcement — the committee would not accept any more people registering to testify for or against SB 37 after 8:30 a.m.

As chair, Wilson may limit testimony. He didn’t do so with another controversial proposal brought before his committee, House Bill 232, which would make it more difficult for undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition. When HB 232 was considered on April 30, Wilson allowed people to register to testify until just before the hearing concluded at 1:06 a.m. the following day.

Wilson did not comment Thursday on his decision to close early the witness registration window for SB 37.

To Garcia, limiting testimony on SB 37 was a clear attempt to silence overwhelming dissent. To others, it was typical for a part-time Legislature that hurries to pass new laws in a 140-day window every two years — work that must conclude by June 2.

“They have to hustle in a way that doesn’t always lend itself to having many voices heard,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.

Texas allows anyone to register to give testimony during committee hearings to go over proposed legislation, but the process can be cumbersome. People must register at kiosks in the Capitol by a deadline that each committee’s chair or clerk has broad discretion to set. The hearings can last all day and have long interruptions whenever members must leave to debate and vote on legislation in their chambers.

This makes it harder to participate for Texans who have jobs they can’t step away from or who don’t live near Austin. This session, farmers from Johnson County waited 18 hours to testify for a bill to limit toxic chemicals in fertilizers, and public school advocates waited 20 hours to testify against a bill to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Sometimes, public testimony can result in more measured legislation, Rottinghaus said. He pointed to Senate Bill 3 as an example. Originally written in the Senate as a ban on THC, the House proposed only tightening regulations after hearing testimony that was both technical and emotional.

“Whether that will ultimately change the bill, I don’t know, but I think just as a general kind of notion that this is really important, that having people make their voice heard and giving legislators more information about what is going on is a big part of the process,” he said.

One of the concerns the professors and students who didn’t get to testify on SB 37 brought up on Thursday was that the proposal could limit the teaching of race and inequality.

Jaime Cantú, an assistant professor of biology at Austin Community College, said the bill could keep future medical professionals from learning about health disparities. He worried that under SB 37, he could be fired for teaching his students about how Interstate 35 has historically served as a dividing line between those who have access to health care in Austin and those who do not. He said he often mentions this to his students, who are mostly low-income people of color making sacrifices to become nurses.

Aihanuwa Ale-opinion said she’s thankful to have learned about how public health structures have and can perpetuate inequality as a biology student at UH.

“Rather than instill feelings of guilt, this has empowered me with the knowledge necessary to create better structures that are more inclusive and has inspired me to be a better peer, a better professional and a better advocate,” she said.

State Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, who authored SB 37, said faculty have too much control over schools’ curricula, which has led to liberal bias in the classroom and many students taking classes that ultimately don’t serve them in their careers.

State Rep. Matt Shaheen, a Plano Republican carrying the legislation in the House, has proposed a version of the bill that removes some of the most controversial parts, such as a requirement that regents approve the hiring of faculty in certain disciplines and a provision to eliminate degree programs with a low return in students’ investment.

But the bill still has its detractors.

Both versions of the bill limit the number of faculty who can be elected to serve on bodies that advise the university or college administration. Both also contain a provision that says faculty who engage in political advocacy can be immediately removed from these bodies.

On May 6, the House Higher Education committee heard public testimony for about two hours before it recessed at about 10 a.m. They reconvened 11 hours later at 9 p.m. and adjourned at about 1 a.m. the next day. In the end, more than 80 people testified about SB 37.

Although Strong was one of 20 people who missed the deadline to register, she stayed at the Capitol all day, helping her colleagues whittle down their remarks and practice so they could maximize the time allowed to speak: two minutes.

In her 32 years at UT-Austin, Strong has developed curriculum and been on search committees to hire deans. She said she wanted to tell lawmakers that the bill’s premise is faulty.

Faculty who take on these responsibilities don’t do so lightly, and their goal is not to indoctrinate students, she said. In fact, she added, those students serve as one of several checks on faculty. They fill out surveys after every course, and any complaints they make are investigated and addressed through mentoring and discipline, which can include termination, Strong said.

“Faculty are not getting away with teaching that is shoddy, out-of-date, or ideologically narrow,” she said. “Our colleagues, administrators and students make sure of that.”

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

Tuesday, October 08, 2024

Tampa mayor issues dire warning to residents ignoring evacuation orders: "If you choose to stay in one of those evacuation areas, you are going to die."

 Friends:

Like you, I am deeply concerned about Hurricane Milton, which is currently heading straight for Florida. Tampa Mayor Jane Castor issued the following dire warning related to evacuation areas: "If you choose to stay in one of those evacuation areas, you are going to die," she said.

I've visited Florida several times over the past few years and have many friends in Tampa and the surrounding areas. I also have family there, though most are in the northeast region, which seems to be less affected. Regardless, this is a very serious situation.

This fierce storm is a direct result of Earth's warming and the rising ocean temperatures caused by human-induced climate change. Hurricanes are nature’s response to these shifts, without which marine life would struggle to survive. However, now is not the time to debate the causes; instead, we must urge all residents in evacuation zones to leave immediately. Possessions can be replaced—lives cannot.

-Angela Valenzuela


TAMPA, Fla. —As Hurricane Milton marches toward Florida's west coast, officials are strongly encouraging those impacted by evacuation orders to leave.

Mandatory evacuation orders have been issued for areas surrounding Tampa Bay, including Pinellas County, Hillsborough County, Pasco County and Manatee County.

In an interview with CNN on Monday, Tampa Mayor Jane Castor delivered a dire warning, urging residents in evacuation areas to leave.

“I can say this without any dramatization whatsoever: If you choose to stay in one of those evacuation areas, you are going to die," she said.

See the warning in the video player above.

In Central Florida, two counties have been issued evacuation orders, but impacts are not expected to be as dangerous as the area where the storm makes landfall.

  • If you are in an evacuation zone, listen to evacuation orders from local officials
  • If an evacuation order is not issued for your area, you may consider sheltering in place. Not all evacuations zones are always ordered.
  • If you shelter in place, it’s important to know your home and its ability to withstand strong winds and heavy rain. Per Florida Division of Emergency Management: "The newer the home is in relation to Florida Building Code (2002 or newer), the more resistant the home may be to hurricanes – as long as the exterior system (Roof, Hurricane Straps, Windows, Doors, Garage Door) are in proper condition. Additionally, it very important that windows, doors and garage doors be impact resistant or have a protective covering (rated hurricane shutters, or properly secured 5/8” inch plywood) properly secured to the opening."

Monday, April 01, 2024

The looming threat from Antarctica: A big thaw will have unexpected consequences for the rest of the world

This morning I heard the news of a severe weather event impacting various states, including Texas after having just read this story of the looming crisis involving Antartica (also read: Severe weather to roar from Texas to Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland) and thought about how frivolous it is for our legislators to be hyper-focused on trans youth, opposing diversity, banning books, and so on when we are very well within the bounds of climate tipping points that place humanity on an already disastrous trajectory (Tandon, 2023; also see Global Tipping Points report).

Then I think that this is the very intention of what often passes itself off as policy "struggles" today. That is, "solutions" looking for problems get manufactured in order to distract and divide us so that extractive greedy, rich, and powerful individuals and corporations can continue with their looting of the planet.

The vigorous, if beautiful, sound of my wind chimes outdoors carry an ominous message of impending doom. When's the last time any of us had a conversation about Antartica? It shouldn't be this way. This should be a preoccupation that is front and center. 

Climate change should get prioritized by local, state, national, and international leaders, especially among the highest polluting countries and polluters, including the U.S.

My thoughts and prayers for all affected by this rapidly approaching severe weather event.

-Angela Valenzuela

References

n.a. Global Tipping Points. Report.

Tandon, A. 2023. Q & A: Climate tipping points have put Earth on 'disastrous trajectory', says new report

The looming threat from Antarctica

A big thaw will have unexpected consequences for the rest of the world

photograph: panos/greenpeace
Listen to this story.
 Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

The arctic and Antarctic are, fittingly, polar opposites. The first is an ocean surrounded by continents, the second a continent surrounded by an ocean. In the one, communities of indigenous people and settlers; in the other, only transients, there for a season or two. Nuclear-armed powers have faced off across the Arctic since the cold war; the same conflict saw a governance regime of peaceful scientific collaboration created for Antarctica that is more utopian in its conception than any other agreement in the annals of diplomacy. The north has the majesty of polar bears, the south the pathos of penguins. The two are united in facing profound upheaval because of global warming. But compared with the changes affecting the Arctic, those threatening the Antarctic are greatly underappreciated.

In part that lack of attention is because of Antarctica’s remoteness; the biggest base there, America’s McMurdo, is almost 4,000km from the nearest city (Christchurch, in New Zealand). Visits are for the most part made only by scientists, adventurers and support staff. In part, too, there is seeming stasis. Change in Antarctica is not like that in Alaska, where melting permafrost buckles roads and topples buildings; or in Siberia, where the smoke from burning tundra paints the skies and sears the lungs. Indeed, for a long time scientists tended to see Antarctica as relatively stable, at least over the short to medium term. Yes, its ice sheets contain enough water to raise the seas by 60 metres—but any collapse would take centuries.

That turns out to have been complacent. Earth’s largest refrigerator is, as we describe in this week’s Science and technology pages, showing alarming signs of a big thaw, one which will have consequences for the rest of the planet. Extreme events like the disappearance of an area of sea ice the size of Greenland during last year’s austral winter are a symptom of a quickening underlying instability. Glaciologists are talking of a “regime shift”. Parts of one of the enormous ice sheets that cover 98% of the continent are sliding towards the seas.

Water shifting from Antarctica’s continental bedrock into the Southern Ocean contributed just 4% to global sea-level rise 20 years ago. Today its share is 12%, and it will rise relentlessly in the decades ahead. This effect has an underappreciated corollary. As Antarctica melts, the gravitational attraction its shrinking ice exerts on the neighbouring seas weakens. That causes sea levels elsewhere to rise even faster. Sea-level rise originating from Antarctica will affect Australia and Oceania, but it will also disproportionately affect North America.

Melting ice sheets do more than raise sea levels. They also bring shifts in atmospheric circulation that stretch to the equator and beyond, changing weather in the Sahel and Amazonia. And the Southern Ocean is one of the world’s largest carbon sinks, responsible for absorbing 40% of all the climate-changing carbon dioxide that the oceans as a whole suck up every year. If it warms, it will absorb less—an effect that may be aggravated when trillions of tonnes of fresh water come off the great frozen South and alter ocean currents.

Despite all this, some countries are cutting their budgets for Antarctic research. This flies in the face of reason. The measurement and modelling of ice sheets lags well behind the study of the atmosphere and of ocean currents; if the implications of the worsening situation are to be properly appreciated and planned for, this needs fixing fast.

Debates over what needs doing most urgently, and how best to co-operate to get it done, should be galvanising the 56 countries that are signatories to the Antarctic treaty. They may not be able to protect the Antarctic environment, a duty to which the treaty’s environmental protocol commits them. They can at least increase their efforts to learn what the changes being forced on the empty continent in their charge mean for the rest of the world.

For more coverage of climate change, sign up for the Climate Issue, our fortnightly subscriber-only newsletter, or visit our climate-change hub.

Monday, July 10, 2023

"Renewables are saving Texas. Again. So give them their due," by Catherine Rampell | Washington Post | July 4, 2023

This is a good Texas story and the big difference that renewable energy is making in Texas. To save the gas and oil industry, Washington Post author Catherine Rampell indicates, these good news are not getting a lot of fanfare, unfortunately. This should be read in tandem with this prescient piece authored by Stanley Cox in the LA Progressive, titled, Tinpot Legislators: Will Their One-Party Rule Destroy the Earth?

We should vigorously defend renewable energy, my friends, which means opposing proposed legislation that seek to curtail or limit it. 

Our use of fossil fuels are heating up the planet, putting us all in peril. We need to work collectively toward a carbon-free future. Texas is poised to take a lead in this regard. Instead of remaining mum or seeking ways to curb investments in renewable energy, our leadership should show a little pride and give voice to this. We are, after all, in the midst of suffocating heat and a clear climate emergency.

-Angela Valenzuela

#ClimateChange #ClimateEmergency

Reference

Cox, S. (2023, April 2). Tinpot Legislators: Will Their One-Party Rule Destroy the Earth? LA Progressive.


Renewables are saving Texas. Again. So give them their due.

by Catherine Rampell | Washington Post | July 4, 2023



Wind turbines are seen near San Benito, Tex., in November 2020. (Brenda Bazán for 

The Washington Post)


This summer, like last summer, Texas has battled a brutal heat wave that regularly reaches triple-digit temperatures. This summer, like last summer, the heat wave triggered record levels of energy demand. This summer, like last summer, there have miraculously been no rolling blackouts; in fact, this year, the state’s grid operator has so far asked for just one day of voluntary energy conservation.


And this summer, like last summer, renewables have been the heroes of the story — yet they remain curiously vilified by politicians in the Lone Star State.


In recent years, renewable energy has been ramping up across Texas. The state has rapidly increased solar capacity, for instance, enabling as much as 16,800 megawatts of solar power to be produced on the grid as of the end of May. That’s roughly six times the capacity that existed in 2019 (about 2,600 megawatts), according to data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid operator.This increase — coupled with greater wind and storage development — is what has allowed Texans to beat the heat and keep their electricity bills down.


After all, several thermal-energy plants in the state went offline in recent weeks, as coal, natural gas and nuclear facilities appeared to buckle under extreme temperatures and shrinking maintenance windows. Additional solar and wind generation more than made up the difference. Renewables overall have lately represented roughly 35 to 40 percent of power generation at peak, compared with about 30 percent last year.

The result is not only that renewables have enabled Texas residents to keep the lights and air conditioning on during this hellish heat. They probably also saved Texans “billions of dollars” last week alone by keeping prices from spiking, says Doug Lewin, an Austin-based energy consultant and author of the Texas Energy and Power Newsletter.


In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”


These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).


While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.


In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”


These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).


While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.


In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”


These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).

While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.


In the legislative session that recently ended, state lawmakers introduced a raft of bills designed to curb renewable-energy investment and prop up traditional thermal energy producers. One bill, for example, would have put new permitting requirements in place just for wind and solar, and nothing else. “You could still site an oil and gas well literally across the fence line from a day-care facility,” explains Lewin, “but you’d have to go and ask permission to put a solar panel on somewhere.”


These bills seem to have been motivated by a combination of factors. For some, it’s just NIMBYism (people not wanting their rustic views ruined by wind turbines, for example). Others want to help the state’s beloved fossil-fuel industry. (Texas remains the top oil-and-gas producing state in the nation, too.) And perhaps others are driven by culture-war concerns (renewables are indulgences pushed by commie tree-huggers, etc.).


While the worst of these bills didn’t make it through, they are likely to get revived in the years ahead. Renewables have proved a favorite scapegoat for any problems with Texas’s power system — even when they’re actually the key to alleviating those problems. For which they never seem to get their due.