Climate change will affect Cayman tourism
(CNS): The planet is set to warm by more than 2°C by 2100. With many of the world’s leaders meeting in Peru’s capital to discuss measures to be taken to reduce global climate change, small Island nations such as Cayman stand to lose out the most from sticking with the status quo. Thousands of activists marched through the streets of Lima Wednesday to demand a just solution to climate change. As sea temperatures rise, the risk of diseases among coral grows, as higher temperatures allow for bacteria to reproduce more easily. Many coral diseases, parasites and fungal infections spread more rapidly when waters warm, sometimes up to 14 times more rapidly.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association of the US says there has been a marked increase in coral diseases in recent years, affecting up to two thirds of the Caribbean. Ocean Acidification dueto pollution will also hinder many species of corals regrowth, increasing the difficulties for marine populations to stay stable.
Cayman’s world renowned dive industry could suffer as a result of the death of corals, as they provide a key component of the marine life’s stability around the islands. As well as the fact that people from around the world will no longer take dive holidays here and local fishing will also be seriously impacted.
CARICOM representatives at the UN made the case for sustainable use of the oceans and seas based on the protection of biodiversity and the promotion of safe trade and fishing activities. Deputy permanent representative of Jamaica to the United Nations Shorna Kay-Richards spoke on behalf of the 15 countries belonging to the regional bloc, at a General Assembly session on the topic to mark the 20th anniversary of the of the entry into force of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
It is not only our marine world that is threatened but our terrestrial one as well. Rising sea-levels will affect our coastline, with storms becoming intensified with warmer waters. Coastal erosion could become a problem, with the destruction of mangroves for residential and other developments. Without mangroves, there will be less fish making it to maturity as juveniles often use them for protection from predators. Without mangroves, our coastline loses their roots providing the area with solidarity, leaving the coast vulnerable to the force of the storm surge and erosion.
Almost all of the Cayman Island’s infrastructure lies only a few metres above sea level and close to shore, and despite the partial implementation of the National Conservation Law (NCL) and the formation of the National Conservation Council, there is little public discussion in the Cayman Islands on the potential future impacts of climate change and unsustainable development on this small country.
The need for a review of the Marine Conservation law and in particular the need to enhance the marine parks has been delayed, not least because of the continued opposition from a small but powerful number of people. The Department of Environment has also had to prioritise the implementation of the NCL as Cayman had no legislation to protect its terrestrial species, nor was it meeting its obligations in regards to some of the international conventions that Britain has extended to its territories.
Although the wider public in Cayman is very supportive of the need for better environmental protection, just a small and powerful lobby of those involved in development have been able to delay the islands' need to modernise legislation to protect its future.
While the rest of the world, in particular our contemporaries in the Caribbean, engage actively in the global discussion on the problem and what can be done to solve it, Cayman is only just coming to terms with needing to consider the environmental impact of development as well as socio-economic impacts.
Category: Science and Nature
Yep, bring it on. My children are planning to rent our house out as a future dive site.
I married my wife because she had webbed fingers. Some thought I was desperate, but I was the shrewd one protecting my genetic code.
Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That's the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.
On March 28 the group sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the agency for making unwarranted claims about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, Business Insider reported.
"We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."The group features some marquee names, including Michael F. Collins, Walter Cunningham and five other Apollo astronauts, as well as two former directors of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.
1. This letter was written in 2012, not 2014.
2. These 49 represent a small fraction of NASA's 16,000 scientists and employees, not to mention the tens of thousands of retired NASA scientists. Most of those who signed the letter are not active research scientists and do not hold degrees in atmospheric sciences or fields related to climate change.
3, The letter was reportedly supported by Leighton Steward from the Heartland Institute, an organization known for its stance of trying to cast doubt on global warming science.
4. NASA responded to the letter, in 2012, inviting those who signed it – which includes Apollo astronauts, engineers and former JSC officials – to join the debate in peer-reviewed scientific literature and public forums. There was no formal denial fallout after this invitation.
5. One of the signatores, Apollo astronaut Jack Schmidt, wrote previously on the RealClimate website that he certainly agrees the science is not settled. “No scientists would be scientists if they thought there was nothing left to find out…The reason why no scientist has said this (that the science is settled) is because they know full well that knowledge about science is not binary – science isn’t either settled or not settled. This is a false and misleading dichotomy.”
However, he added, “In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community. The existence of the greenhouse effect, the increase in CO2 (and other GHGs) over the last hundred years and its human cause, and the fact the planet warmed significantly over the 20th Century are not much in doubt.”
6. If the 97% of climate scientists who advocate anthropogenic causes for climate change are wrong, many of us will feel shamed for our strong support for their science and warnings, and science itself will suffer a black eye. But if they are right, then future generations will suffer our intrasigence and stubborn insistance on burning more fossil fuels to satisfy our insatiable hunger for "progress".
It doesn't depend on how many people raise their hands. Science is not really concensus based. Over and over you see that the majority is right, until they are wrong.
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
The Petition Project actuallywas launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
It is amusing that you say that it has no impact yet the presence of greenhouse gases is why the earth and atmosphere system can sustain a temperature whereby mankind can exist.
Climate Change is a fraud desinged to rip you off by world governemnts, activists and fraudulently funded scientific studies (billions in funding to push this hoax), via a tax schemes on all energy companies.
Whether Cayman is a tax free enviroment is irrelevent, these charletans have found a way to tax everyone acroos the globe, woth trillions in tax revenenues, its call the GLOBAL WARMING (rebranded as Climate Change since the globe has been cooling since 1994) Tax fraud.
Quite right. It's like SARS, bird flu pandemics, ebola and all the other scares – too may 'experts' making too much money out of spreading misery.
Actually therte is far more money in denying global warming, the oil companies spent almost 10 times enviromentalist on lobbiests, junk science companies (the ones Tobacco companies set up when the medical world linked smoking with cancer). You can get far richer lying for the oil companies.
this debate clearly flies over the head of the local brainaic's who excel at sticking their head in the sand about these issues…..
we live magicial wonderland where you can't buy groceries on a sunday…….we are light years away from discussing these topics….
Cayman is so small, even if we had absolutely zero emissions the net effect on climate change would be zero. However, the environmental extremist don’t mind killing the local economy so they could feel better about themselves while at their cocktail parties sipping on expensive wine and showing off their latest jewelry purchase.
Hogwash.
Follow the money.
Most importantly, quit shovelling this crap down the throats of our schoolchildren. This is a most grotesque and Nazi-style misinformed indoctrination of innocent minds today.
Never mind though – I am always certain to correct the young ones in my presence whenever the issue pops up. Yes, they may be a bit confused today, but they will remember and be thankful tomorrow. I refuse to allow the miseducation of my children simply because Al Gore or some scientifically-rebuffed UN panel says so.
Environmentalism; the new religion. Don't you dare "deny" it!
You will why in 3 … 2 …1.
😉
Silly boy. Silly silly arrogant vain boy.
When 3 scientist disagree with 5000 in opinion, and one of those 3 is"whodatis" you can rest assured that global warming is a myth.
You are full of it. Whodatis is correct! We have had cooling and warming periods for millions of years. Chronologically speaking, the earth still coming out of the last ice age.
SO climate change does exist, thank you
Damn straight! Lol! 🙂
All jokes aside though, the "science community" has been completely corrupted and overrun by agenda and funding-determining tactics.
E.g. If I am a head professor at a research university and see where my UN, national govt, org. grant may be jeopardized by speaking up for the truth on this "global warming" balarney – then I may probably play ball as well.
You don't have to believe it poster, to each his own. All I demand is for you and your dysfunction to butt the hell out of my existence and personal enjoyment of this big and beautiful planet Earth.
You say "science community", we say science community.
Whodatis – i've said it before, i'll probably have to keep saying again – follow the money. ask yourself who has the most to lose and the most to gain. Its as simple as that. Huge multi-national oil companies or scientists driving volvos to their labs? Are you kidding me, it is not complicated! They have infulenced you into thinking that you are being sceptical but in reality you are just being a denialist, The oil companies have influenced your opinions…….
If I was a head professor in this situationI would go and get my funding from the oil industry and produce some junk science to try and muddy the GW waters for the public. Far moremoney in that and the masses eat it up.
Whodatis, the day you become a professor is the day I become King of England. Neither of us is qualified for such positions.
At least the odds are more in his favour than some of his other "facts".
That's what you get with a red brick education.
I am so glad that you know better than 97% of climate scientists, and have set us straight.
+ Nazi references attached to a story on climate change – you can do better my friend.
Whodat is, you are 100% correct. It's a global warming is a cult, and the cult followers are ready to hang you if you dare not believe in the religion of climate change.
But you don't mind religion being forced those same children's throats, denying them accessto critical thinking, or the ability to problem solve.
Who is "you"?
I stated a very personal perspective on "global warming" and you retorted with a very broad claim.
I ought to charge you rent poster as you obviously reside in my head.
What rubbish. Religion never stopped Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, Max Planck etc etc. etc. from being critical thinkers and some of the greatest scientists of all time.
Christianity in particular was highly conducive to the birth of science:
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
They can't shove it down your throat if you got your head in the sand. Only our one and only whothef**k would accuse people who are qualified to talk of knowing less than him.
Look! An the ugly troll begging for attention.
Don't you be badmouthing us trolls. We can't help how we look.
Follow the money? so large multinational oil companies worth trillions of dollars against climate scientists who hope to get a $50,000 grant to study climate science for another year? YES – I AM FOLLOWING THE MONEY…..
follow the money, it's in oil, they are in a fight to the death just like the tobacoo companies 30 years ago that produced junk science to confuse the lower IQ'd masses to keep on smoking. Those same "think tanks" are now paayrolled by the oil companies. Oil companies outspent enviromaental groups 10 fold last year on Washington lobbyists, so please do follow the money. Denying the obvious has always been religion's aim, so actually denying that climate never changes is the new religion, just like species never evolve of change. Maybe you should spend less time burning books and more time reading them.
Just had a thought today.
No internal combustion vehicles on Cayman by 2030.
Eliminate import duty on electric cars today. Bonus people who purchase Electric cars $1000 if the export an internal Combustion Vehicle they presently own.
In 3 years increase vehicle duty to 50% and raise it 15% a year for the next 10 years. A 200% import duty vs no duty would me decide what to replace my gas guzzler with.
It's a nice idea but for the time being, what energy source do the electric cars run on?
Answer: electricity produced by the diesel-burning generators at CUC.
Nice sentiment and decent ideas, but it won't make a dent in the major source of fuel consumption here: the diesel which is fueling the energy you are currently using to read this sentence. Our electricity source needs to be switched to solar, wind and tidal power as soon as possible.
You know that electric cars don't actually reduce emissions? The emissions are just in a different place. A lot of the electricity that is generated to charge the electric cars is created by the combustion of fossil fuels (approx 67% in 2014). When a car burns fossil fuels to convert that energy to work in the vehicle there is about a small loss of energy as heat during the phase change but most of the energy is transferred into work in the vehicle. When the electric car is charged the amount of energy lost through the many different transfers, the loss of energy through heat and other "leaks" is much greater than when the fossil fuels are burned directly in the car. Just because you can't see the emissions doesn't mean that there are no emissions.
Climate change may affect tourism in 2100 but the widely rumoured departure of British Airways in a few months should be of at least equal concern.
How will all the bankers who lose their jobs when RBC Wealth Management closes and the rest follow suit leave the island?
I think they would manage to find seats on the Canadian, Amercian and Caymanian aircraft. ! tired old 767, a few times a week, with surplus capacity on the other airlines, is not a radical change in the airlift capacity (although it may make it a little awkward for anyone who has to avoid landing on US soil!).
Since most are Caymanian and have no family links to the UK, that piece of sad news will not really make any difference.
There are many flights leaving daily.
Any Premier who lets that happen should resign.
What's it got to do with the Premier? Surely it is purely a business decision for BA whether the Cayman run is worth their while. Why do people have to turn everything into a political football?
caymanians don't do resignations,…or accountability……..
What you talking bout willis??
But how will our Filipinos get to work???
How many tourists does BA actually fly into ORIA? Last time I used it there were about 40 on the flight (many of them residents) and that's not remotely enough to cover the operating costs of a 767.
BA have been losing money on the hop from Nassau to Grand Cayman for years and bluntly shutting it down makes a lot of sense.
Both BA and Virgin operate into a number of airports where they could connect to CAL and that's the way we should be looking for future arrivals from the UK. An arrangement like that would make money for CAL and we should be welcoming it.
Tourists are much more likely to go where there is a direct flight.
In which case why do so few tourists from the UK and Europe use the BA service? The harsh reality is that not only is the service costing BA a lot of money but the fare structure required to maintain it is discouraging tourists from coming here. And it's no goodarguing that extending ORIA will encourage BA to fly direct from London because unlike other destinations in the region the Cayman Islands will never generate the load factors required to support that.
Thanks to the sterling efforts of the Dept of Tourism we have missed the proverbial boat when it comes to trans-atlantic tourism and are now priced out of any serious re-entry to that market.
A return flight to ORIA on BA runs out at least £700. You can get a week all inclusive (food, booze, flights from the UK and transfers) at the Blau Varadero (which I've stayed in and it is excellent) in Cuba for £670. I say that's a complete no-brainer.
When BA drop the ORIA service it might serve as a wake up call to CIG but I doubt it.
Check out the BA website. They're already working with American Airllnes offering flights to ORIA through Miami. I fact the AA flight option can be cheaper than the 'direct' BA service.
And while you're at it take a look at the cost of combining a CAL flight with AA or BA. It adds a staggering £1400 to the fare – I wonder why?
BA and AA are in the Oneworld Alliance, which reduces interline operating costs for booking and operating the connecting flights as well as providing an agreed mechanism for revenue sharing. Cayman Airways is not. Mixing two airlines not in a revenue sharing or strategic alliance is always more expensive. I fly frequently to the UK, and I can tell you it is ALWAYS cheaper – substantially – to fly via Miami, and usually cheaper to fly on an AA aircraft transatalantic (even when you book it through BA as a codeshare).
But £1400 more? Come on there must be more to it than that.
Anyway what we have determind here is that the Nassau-ORIA is on the way out and it's probably not going to be any great loss.
Having to travel through the US would scare many clients and advisors from using Cayman.
The casualties for solving climate change are high numbers of unemployment and unstable economic growth worldwide. It will be a costly process to find out what's the best solution to undo global warming while experiencing a global cooling at the same time without benefit to the global economy. Government appropriations around the world can do more than that instead of pulling down the price of energy commodities in the world markets, unless this is done purposely which is related to another and pressing topic "political power and unstoppable war".
Get real! There's nothing we can do that will make a particle of difference in global warming. Undo global warming? Never happen!
just like there is nothing we can do about being hit by a hurricane. But hang on we prepare for those, we don't just sit in a recliner by the pool, throw up our hands and say i can't stop it. We board up our houses etc. Many people are so against the idea that climate change is caused by people that they also ignore the fact that it does not matter, sea levels will rise and we have to prepare for it what ever the cause.
Gobal warming will not stop becuse we continue to replace green jungles with concrete ones!
But we need dart. He gives us work
Climate change is man made , look at how much money AL Gore has made from it and so many more people's . Why Cayman would be greatly effected by the year 2100 ? I think we should all be good stewards of the environment . The Government has the biggest role to play in protecting the environment , look at the many cruise ship anchors that have been dropped on the corals , look at garbage dump that should have been taken care of 25 years ago . All the above mentioned are some of the things that these climate change people make big money from .
hey you're right, Al Gore has made so much more money than those pesky little oil companies. Follow the money to find the truth.
7 of the worlds top 30 companies are directly related to the production and sale of Oil and Gas and combined have a market capitalisation of well over 1 trillion dollars. Now ask the question, who has the most most to lose and who has the most money…….
it is one thing being a skeptic but its a whole different matter being a denier!
Meanwhile in Caymanabsurdistan………
CNS: Council member Davy Ebanks questioned aloud during the meeting whether the ambiguities in the bill were leading to the creation of a “bloated” bureaucracy, hindering a private individual’s rights to develop their land without having to run through extensive and expensive EIA’s.
He also warned the NCC that this would affect small farmers and landholders principally, saying that when this “unworkable interdepartmental bureaucracy” ran into the problems he described, he reserved the right to say “I told unna so”.