| 008 |
|
150603n^^^^^^^^xx^||||^o^^^^^|||^u^eng^d |
| 245 |
00 |
|a Climate Change and the Florida Keys |h [electronic resource] |b Main Report. |
| 506 |
|
|a Please contact the owning institution for licensing and permissions. It is the user's responsibility to ensure use does not violate any third party rights. |
| 520 |
3 |
|a This research is part of the Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), which was initiated in 1998.
The main report concerns the Florida Keys. It includes two appendices that identify key issues related to the future of the Keys over the 21st century. Four background papers deal with the global environment (Hoegh‐Guldberg 2010a,b,c,d). They are described first to put the Florida Keys into context.
The global environment: The threat of global climate change has grown over very few years from urgent to “red alert” according to the vast majority of climate scientists. Better climate models showing positive feedback have dramatized the evidence, but more importantly what were previously considered worst cases have moved closer to the center of the probability distribution. Global factors are therefore even more crucial than when this project was first planned in 2005.
The research is derived from the four global scenarios originally developed for the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001 – alternative scenarios showing the consequences of taking no corrective action through climate policy. Despite their age, the scenario stories still form a reasonably updatable framework, but the numerical implications are no longer acceptable. The current scientific consensus is that atmospheric CO2 levels of 450 parts per million or more will be quite unsafe. To keep average global warming to a maximum 2OC above pre‐industrial levels means reducing the CO2 from the 2009 level of 388 ppm to 350 ppm or less (Hoegh‐Guldberg 2010a).
A second background paper (Hoegh‐Guldberg 2010b) challenges the assumption in the IPCC scenarios that world economic growth would be unaffected by global warming – even when growing towards 4, 5, and 6OC above pre‐industrial levels. It uses a simple model to show that in some “worst” cases, and even some “most likely” cases, the world GDP could begin falling in the second half of the century – which would be unpredictably disruptive. Only the global environmental scenario B1 would produce uninterrupted economic growth through the century.
Another concern is that economic theory itself has failed to guide major government policy directions to deal with climate change and the global financial crisis. Economics needs to change some of its basic assumptions and mesh more with other disciplines (Hoegh‐Guldberg 2010c).
The final background paper (Hoegh‐Guldberg 2010d) discusses technologies that may help save the planet from the impact of climate change. They fall into three groups: technologies to develop renewable and other energy sources, energy efficiency, and retaining and developing land‐based and coastal carbon sinks. It is also essential to keep diffusing technologies from rich to developing countries and even more to encourage the invention of genuinely new technologies in more countries, not just the United States and other first‐world nations. Worldwide technological development will be vital in the fight against climate change in the 21st century, and it is encouraging that more countries have started to develop innovative technologies.
The Florida Keys are the most vulnerable part of what is the mainland US State most vulnerable to climate change. The Keys are equivalent, in practice, to Monroe County. The following points cover first biophysical factors, and then some main socioeconomic consequences:
1.
The main threat is from sea‐level rise, which even in the best‐case scenario could inundate 38% of the current land area (in the worst case practically the whole area). More violent and frequent hurricanes will exacerbate this threat.
2.
Elevated sea temperature is the primary influence on the coral reef, aggravated by acidification.
3.
These factors reinforce traditional stressors including land‐based pollution, overfishing, destructive fishing practices, invading species, and disease.
4.
The coral cover of the reefs around the Florida Keys declined by half between 1996 and 2008. Commercial fishery landings in Monroe County showed similar declines, including reef fish (snappers, groupers), spiny lobsters, and pink shrimp.
5.
Water supply is basically from outside the Keys, through aquifers. It is already being affected by saltwater intrusion, which would be aggravated by further sea‐level rise.
6.
Carrying capacity is a key issue for Monroe County. Partly as a result of its residential permit control, the population has been declining since 1996.
7.
This trend is being intensified by structural economic and demographic change, with a large increase in the number of non‐residents owning or leasing condominiums and share‐type accommodation. It also shows up in the employment structure in Monroe County, with a 60% increase in the real estate sector while the main categories associated with the hospitality industry and retail trade have stagnated or declined.
8.
The mainstay of the Keys economy, tourism, also remained largely static between 1995‐96 and 2007‐08, according to the major NOAA visitor surveys. Moreover, the tourists now tend to seek land‐based rather than sea‐based activities, with an increasing concentration on the historic center of Key West.
9.
Finally, living close to a major population center of 5.5 million people has a multitude of consequences, most of them adding to the risks faced by the Florida Keys despite strong local and regional government action to manage the situation.
These are formidable challenges for the Florida Keys. Both the County and the Sanctuary are managing the situation as effectively as they can. The key is increasing resilience, applied primarily to the coral reef but relevant beyond. Although still difficult to manage, some control is possible over reef health, sustainability, and fisheries, local pollution, the economy and its main driver, tourism, and how to use education and outreach effectively.
These are all part of the armory of the integrated coastal and marine management system within which the FKNMS operates – multiple jurisdictions working with other federal, state and local agencies. The local community also plays a major role, with the Sanctuary Advisory Council meeting with FKNMS executives on a bimonthly basis since 1992. Local community organizations are also exerting increasing influence and support. |
| 533 |
|
|a Electronic reproduction. |c Florida International University, |d 2015. |f (dpSobek) |n Mode of access: World Wide Web. |n System requirements: Internet connectivity; Web browser software. |
| 600 |
|
|a. |z Florida Keys (Fla.) |
| 710 |
2 |
|a Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. |
| 710 |
2 |
|a NOAA Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program. |
| 830 |
0 |
|a South Florida Collection. |
| 830 |
0 |
|a Federal Documents Collection. |
| 852 |
|
|a dpSobek |c Sea Level Rise |
| 856 |
40 |
|u http://dpanther.fiu.edu/dpService/dpPurlService/purl/FI15060304/00001 |y Click here for full text |
| 992 |
04 |
|a http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/content/FI/15/06/03/04/00001/Hoegh-Guldberg_2010_Climate Change and the Florida Keys3thm.jpg |
