S.C. lawmakers deem threat of global warming serious Lowcountry termed particularly at risk; officials agree that something must be done

January 22, 2006, The Post and Courier , Charleston SC
by David Slade

Climate change is a worldwide concern, but South Carolina's Lowcountry and other coastal areas are particularly vulnerable to some of the anticipated results of global warming.

The Charleston area is likely to see a 19-inch rise in sea levels that will submerge marsh and wetlands, erode beaches, increase flooding and amplify the damage from storm surges by 2100, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

As average temperatures rise between 1 and 5 degrees, endangered species would be threatened by habitat loss, trout could disappear from South Carolina streams, heat waves would be more common, rainstorms would be less frequent but more powerful, and pests like mosquitoes and ticks would be more plentiful, the EPA has warned.

These warnings are not new.

What's new is that a growing number of South Carolina policymakers and an increasingly broad range of interest groups agree that the threat is real, and that something must be done.

"It's interesting what happens when you have an opportunity to learn some facts," Rep. Robert Inglis, R-S.C., said Saturday at a panel discussion on climate change in Spartanburg, hosted by the National Wildlife Federation's South Carolina chapter.

Inglis, of Greenville, had just returned from a fact-finding trip to Antarctica with House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert and National Science Foundation Deputy Director Kathie Olsen. He said the trip reinforced his concerns about global warming.

Representatives of the National Wildlife Federation and Trout Unlimited used the panel discussion to lay out the threat that climate change poses to animals as well as people.

"It is happening so fast that there is great concern wildlife will be unable to adapt to it," said Douglas Inkley, senior science adviser for the National Wildlife Federation.

Climate change will alter habitats and plant life, he said. Birds will change their migration patterns, tropical plants and animals will extend their range farther north on the East Coast, and waterfowl dependent on marshes will decline, said Inkley.

Thomas McInnis, a botany professor emeritus from Clemson University and state chairman of the South Carolina council of Trout Unlimited, said trout already have a tenuous existence in the state, and could disappear altogether if climate change predictions prove true.

"Trout and salmon are cold-water species, and as such may be an early indicator of the impact of global warming," he said.

McInnis said Trout Unlimited has made global warming part of its official platform of issues.

Inglis said he's concerned about environmental changes, but also sees global warming as an economic opportunity for South Carolina, and a national security issue, due to the United States' dependence on foreign oil. He supports hydrogen fuel research, which could prove lucrative for the state's nuclear facilities.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also has pursued funding for hydrogen research. Last year he went on a trip to Alaska with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other lawmakers, who viewed melting glaciers and deforested areas, and spoke with natives of the area.

"If you can go to the native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening," Graham said upon his return.

"Sen. Graham buys into the science," said legislative assistant Matthew Rimkunas, who attended the panel discussion Saturday in Graham's place. "Going to Glacier National Park and seeing no glaciers ? that's the kind of thing that moves policymakers.

"We're trying to find policies that will not harm the economy and will accomplish our goals," he said. "None of the legislation that's been proposed does those things, so Sen. Graham has been, unfortunately, unable to support them."

Graham last year voted for a non-binding Senate resolution calling for action on global warming, and voted against the Climate Stewardship Act proposed by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and McCain, which called for capping many industrial emissions at 2000 levels by 2010.

Greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil and gas, cause global warming by trapping heat in the atmosphere. Emissions have been increasing, and climate change is accelerating, according to the EPA.

During the last century, the average temperature in Columbia rose 1.3 degrees, and the sea level at Charleston rose 9 inches, according to the federal agency.

Skeptics argue that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and continue to dispute the view of most scientists that the climate is changing because of human activities. Inglis said he used to be one of those skeptics.

"I think the thing we need to recognize is, there are natural things happening, but it's against a background of human activity since the Industrial Revolution," Inglis said.

Mark MacLeod, special projects coordinator for the Washington D.C.-based advocacy group Environmental Defense, said the federal government must stop the increase of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, not just slow it down.

"We need to use the full power of the American economy to find the most cost-efficient solutions," he said.

MacLeod said the government should look at the costs of doing nothing.

"What's going to be the cost to infrastructure when the sea rises?" he said.