“Climate­-driven changes are already evident over the last few decades for severe thunderstorms, for heavy precipitation and flash flood­ing, for hurricane activity, and for heatwave, drought and wild­-fire dynamics in parts of North America.”

So concludes Munich Re, a top reinsurer, in a major new study that, for the first time, links the rapid rise in North American extreme weather catastrophes to manmade climate change.

At the same time non-climatic events (earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis) have hardly changed, as the figure shows.

Prof. Peter Höppe, who heads Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research unit, said:

“In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climate-change footprint in our US loss data from the last four decades. Previously, there had not been such a strong chain of evidence. If the first effects of climate change are already perceptible, all alerts and measures against it have become even more pressing.”

The 274-page study, “Severe weather in North America” draws on “the most comprehensive natural catastrophe database worldwide,” though my favorite part is four words at the bottom of the back jacket:

Precisely.

This study builds on a September 2010 analysis by Munich Re, “Large number of weather extremes as strong indication of climate change,” which concluded:

… it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge

At the time Höppe, explained to me what had persuaded him of the causal link:

For me the most convincing piece of evidence that global warming has been contributing already to more and more intense weather related natural catastrophes is the fact that while we find a steep increase in the number of loss relevant weather events (about tripling in the last 30 years) we only find a slight increase in geophysical (earthquake, volcano, tsunami) events, which should not be affected by global warming. If the whole trend we find in weather related disaster should be caused by reporting bias, or socio-demographic or economic developments we would expect to find it similarly for the geophysical events.

And that was before two years of off-the-charts extreme weather catastrophes, particularly in North America (see NOAA Chief 11/11: U.S. Record of a Dozen Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters in One Year Is “a Harbinger of Things to Come”).

It was also before multiple studies linking the surge in extreme weather to global warming, particularly in North America (see NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather and links therein and below).

The new study finds:

Nowhere in the world is the rising number of natural catastrophes more evident than in North America. The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades, compared with an increase factor of 4 in Asia, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe and 1.5 in South America.

The study draws on a forthcoming journal article on how global warming is driving up “large-scale thunderstorm forcing”:

The results of the study indicate that climatic changes have driven up multi­year aver­ages of thunderstorm-­related normalized losses since 1970 and that anthropogenic climate change, most likely respon­sible for increasing levels of humidity over time, is fully con­sistent with this change.

Here’s a key figure on thunderstorm losses from the Munich Re study, “normalized to the current amount of destructible wealth exposed in the areas hit.” The “normalized annual overall thunderstorm losses displays a clear positive trend, even if the record­breaking year 2011 is ignored“:

Read more

by Bill Becker

An ongoing argument in the presidential election campaign is whether Gov. Romney’s or President Obama’s positions are better for small businesses on issues such as government regulation and energy policy. I asked David Levine for his opinion.

Levine is cofounder and CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), a growing non-partisan coalition of business networks and businesses committed to creating a vision, a framework and policies that support a vibrant, just and sustainable economy.

Founded in 2009, ASBC’s mission is to inform and engage business leaders, and to educate policy makers and the media, about the need and opportunities for a sustainable economy.

ASBC and its organizational members represent more than 150,000 businesses and more than 300,000 individual entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals across the United States. Members cover the gamut of local and state chambers of commerce, microenterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable business groups, local living economy groups, women business leaders, economic development organizations and investor and business incubators

Here’s what Levine had to say.

1) Both presidential candidates have highlighted the value of small businesses in creating jobs. How important is mitigating and adapting to climate change to small business development and success?

There is a particular concern among our members about the consequences of human-induced climate change. As the World Bank’s World Development Report 2010 argues, “Economic growth alone is unlikely to be fast or equitable enough to counter threats from climate change, particularly if it remains carbon intensive and accelerates global warming.” The World Bank goes on to say, “climate policy cannot be framed as a choice between growth and climate change. In fact, climate-smart policies are those that enhance development, reduce vulnerability, and finance the transition to low-carbon growth paths.”

Businesses of all sizes will be hurt by the failure to address climate change. Many small businesses have taken innovative steps to use clean energy and to make their operations more energy efficient. Small businesses, lacking the resources of major corporations, will be harder hit by climate change and stand to gain considerably from efforts to reverse it. Small businesses will be hit with increasing liability and insurance premiums as storms and other impacts of climate change become more prevalent. These are funds that are better spent on building their business and creating more jobs.

In addition, consumers are increasingly demanding products and services that utilize clean energy. By making these resources more readily available through policy and market incentives, businesses can better meet this demand.

2) Is there a legitimate federal role in climate mitigation and adaptation?

Read more

by Kate Gordon

America’s energy future is at a crossroads. Everyone can agree that we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil while strengthening our economy and creating jobs. But how do we get there?

One path at first appears to be a shortcut: Exploiting our natural resources and drilling our way to an energy-independent future. But it’s a deceptive path, which disregards the long-term implications for our landscapes, environment, security, and economy. The alternative is a longer but more realistic path, one that continues to diversify and strengthen the economy through proactive solutions that move us toward sustainable energy independence and create the jobs of the future.

In that first vision—brought to us in ads, policy briefs, and conferences funded by billion-dollar energy companies—America is a land of fossil-fuel extraction, where every region makes its own contribution to a drilling-intensive future. Fossil fuel interests have spent an estimated $153 million in this year alone promoting fossil fuels and attacking clean energy industries, but perhaps the best articulation of this “drill baby drill” vision comes from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry’s trade association. Its recent platform proposal to the Republican and Democratic party platform committees advocates drilling for oil offshore, for oil and gas onshore, for coal mining in general, and for building pipelines to transport all these dirty fossil fuels around the country. The industry institute applies this same backward-looking strategy to every region of the country, regardless of whether it’s the most effective method.

It is clear that this strategy enhances the profitability of big oil companies. But it’s much less clear that it enhances the interests of the American people.

And ultimately, it’s a mirage. The United States cannot achieve lasting energy and economic security through resource extraction alone. An energy plan based solely on drilling and mining for more and harder-to-reach fossil fuels squanders the opportunity to diversify and strengthen our economy, threatens our nation’s ability to lead in the global marketplace, and completely ignores the urgent need to combat climate change and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, it dismisses the significant growth of the clean economy, a diverse set of industries that employs some 3.1 million Americans.

This report provides an alternative vision, a better approach for America and the planet we share. Broadly, we present a vision that:

• Recognizes that our earth is warming, and our resources are finite, which means we must swiftly enact measures to make us global leaders in the face of that reality
• Mandates investment in multiple forms of energy and fuel so we are never dependent on just one finite resource for electricity and transportation needs
• Understands the unique assets of each region of our country, whether they are natural resources or infrastructure and workforce investments
• Relies on ambitious, large-scale projects to create new jobs and anchor strong economic development strategies to ensure American economic competitiveness and true energy independence well into the future

The promise of the clean economy is not a mirage or a far-off goal. It is being felt right now across our country. In the second quarter of 2012 alone, more than 37,000 new clean energy jobs were announced in projects across 30 states. Recognizing the critical need to enhance our energy security, the U.S. military has become a major proponent of clean energy solutions such as biofuels, efficiency, and solar. The world’s largest investors agree that long-term climate change and clean energy policy is a tremendous investment opportunity, “providing a robust foundation for economic recovery and sustainable long-term economic growth.”

Read more

by Tom Kenworthy

Voters who tuned in to the most recent presidential debate may have come away with the impression that the country’s vast portfolio of public lands exists almost solely for oil, gas and coal development.

But even though it hasn’t gotten as much attention, President Obama has recently been demonstrating the power he holds thanks to the 1906 Antiquities Act, which allows him to protect important parts of the federal estate by declaring them national monuments. Signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt, the act has been used by most presidents – of both parties – in the years since to protect special public lands, including quite a few that have gone on to receive full national park status by Congress.

Earlier this month, the president created his fourth monument in less than a year, the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument in Keene, California. The designation honors the late civil rights worker and founder of the United Farm Workers who did so much to further the cause of itinerant field laborers, many of them Hispanic.

As usual, some congressional Republicans called the Chavez monument designation an abuse of presidential power. And, like Captain Renault in the film “Casablanca,” some Republicans were shocked – shocked – to see the leader of the free world playing politics with the Antiquities Act.

“This national monument designation is an unnecessary use of Presidential powers and appears to be based more on politics than sound policy,” House Natural Resources Committee Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) complained in a statement in response to the Chavez monument designation. Hastings didn’t say it outright, but he obviously thought the president was appealing to Hispanic voters, a key bloc in the upcoming election.

Hastings and his House GOP colleagues have themselves repeatedly played politics on public lands issues over the past two years, on everything from energy development to proposed legislation to curtail the administration’s power to shield federal lands from commercial activities.

What they can’t seem to come to grips with is that the public – in particular the public in many western states – understands and supports protection of special federal lands, and knows that it’s both good politics and good economics to save some areas from drilling rigs and road graders.

A poll commissioned this year by the Colorado College State of the Rockies project, for example, found that nine out of ten westerners believe that public lands play an important part in their quality of life and in their states’ economies

Tom Kenworthy is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.