On Friday, the City of New York allocated $294 million of Superstorm Sandy recovery funds for resiliency projects to respond to the threat of fossil-fueled climate change.

The announcement was part of the unveiling of NYC’s plan for $1.77 billion in Sandy recovery initiatives by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) at New York City Hall:

The City has set aside $294 million for resiliency investments to be detailed in a report issued by the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency later this month.

“HUD’s approval of our comprehensive Action Plan enables us to take the next critical step toward recovery – launching the programs for home rebuilding and business assistance that will rejuvenate the neighborhoods Sandy hit hardest,” said Deputy Mayor for Operations Cas Holloway. “We’ll also take the first steps toward making the City more resilient to the impacts that we know climate change will bring.”

The sequester cuts reduced the planned budget for resilience from an original $327 million.

The New York City Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) was established by Bloomberg in November, 2012, with an explicit mission to address global warming:

When it comes to climate change, New York City has long been considered a leader in long-term sustainable planning, but Hurricane Sandy was a wake-up call to all New Yorkers.

Read more

This morning, CAP Senior Fellow Daniel J. Weiss testified before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce about electric grid reliability. He made a strong case for confronting the elephant in the room –the impact climate change has on the reliability and security of the electric grid. The other elephant in the room is the effect that burning fossil fuels for electricity has on our climate.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on “American Energy Security and Innovation: Grid Reliability Challenges in a Shifting Energy-Resource Landscape.”

Discussing electricity security and innovation while ignoring climate change is like discussing personal health while ignoring cigarette smoking, diet, and exercise. Any examination of this shifting landscape must acknowledge that our electricity-generation systems produce much of the carbon pollution responsible for climate change and that the effects of climate change impair electricity reliability. Since coal-fired power plants emit one-third of the climate pollution in the United States, it is irresponsible to assess changes in our electricity system while ignoring climate pollution and its impacts.

Americans understand that extreme weather is related to man-made climate change that costs our economy billions of dollars annually. A recent poll from Yale University and George Mason University found that many Americans believe that global warming caused recent extreme weather and climatic events to be “more severe.”

Extreme weather events — including storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires — threaten electricity reliability. The Congressional Research Service concluded that, “[P]ower delivery systems are most vulnerable to storms and extreme weather events.”

These events also threaten American lives and the economy. The most severe and extreme weather events caused 1,107 deaths and $188 billion in damages in 2011 and 2012.

A Center for American Progress analysis found that federal natural disaster-relief and recovery spending cost taxpayers $136 billion in the fiscal years from 2011 to 2013, or $400 per household annually. And the National Climate Assessment draft warns us that we can expect more extreme and severe weather, including droughts and rainstorms. The severe 2012 drought, for example, interfered with electricity generation in California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York by shrinking the amount of cooling water available for power plants. It also disrupted oil and natural gas production.

Superstorm Sandy and other severe storms disrupted electricity transmission and distribution by downing power lines and damaging substations. The National Climate Assessment draft predicts that future climate-change-related events will interfere with electricity transmission.

We urge the subcommittee to support policies to achieve a more secure, reliable electricity system by accomplishing the following three goals:

1. The subcommittee should support policies that slow climate change by reducing carbon pollution from power plants, the largest uncontrolled source of emissions.

Failing that, EPA must at least comply with the Supreme Court by setting such standards under the Clean Air Act.

Read more

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Thanks to Mari Hernandez, Research Associate, and Jackie Weidman, Special Assistant, on the Energy Policy team of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

By Bill Becker, via Huffington Post

On March 19, The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released its new report card on the condition of America’s infrastructure. Overall, our infrastructure in 16 categories ranging from bridges to water systems earned only a D+. ASCE estimates the United States needs to invest $3.6 trillion by 2020 to bring America’s infrastructure up to good repair.

Among these systems are several that are critical to reducing the loss of life and property from the growing impacts of global climate change. Dams were graded D; levees earned only a D-; waste water and storm water control systems also were given a D. Drinking water and energy infrastructure — both vulnerable to extreme weather events — received a D and D+ respectively.

The bad news is that the cost of bringing these engineered systems up to par comes at a time when government budgets at all levels are strained, if not in crisis. The good news is that some of the services we receive from engineered systems can be provided instead by natural systems if we restore and protect them.

Ecosystems perform a wide variety of important services for free. Trees provide shade, purify air and water, and store carbon. Wetlands regulate flooding. Coastal marshes buffer communities from storm surges. Forests and soils store carbon as well as water. Many of these ecosystems have been degraded or destroyed by human development. Now, communities need to put nature back to work.

I asked three of the United States’ premier experts on ecosystem services about these issues. The first is Keith Bowers, president of Biohabitats Inc. in Baltimore. Mr. Bowers is working on conservation, restoration and regenerative design projects across the United States, from Fairbanks, Alaska to the Big Cypress Swamp in Florida. The second expert is Dr. Bob Costanza, the ecological economist who coauthored one of the first assessments of the economic value of global ecosystem services. The third expert is Prof. Ed Barbier, a prolific author and blogger on the topic and a professor of economics at the University of Wyoming. Because of the length of the interview and the importance of the topic, I’ll post it in two parts.

Q: It has been our practice in the United States not to value things we can’t count — particularly things we don’t think have monetary value. A great deal of work has been underway in recent years to express the value of ecosystem services in monetary units so we can quantify their benefits in terms that everyone understands. What’s the status of that work?

Costanza: In 1997, several colleagues and I made the first attempt to do this at global scale. We synthesized existing studies and produced an estimate significantly larger than global GDP. We estimated the global value of ecosystem services expressed in monetary units to be in the range of $15 to $47 trillion per year in 1995 dollars. That estimate has attracted considerable attention and discussion.

We are now finishing work to update those estimates based on the significant amount of new data, methods and research that has accumulated. These new estimates are significantly larger, indicating that the more we learn about ecosystem services the more comprehensive our estimates or their values become.

What do these analyses tell us? First, the ecosystem services concept makes it abundantly clear that the choice of “the environment versus the economy” is a false choice. If nature contributes significantly to human well being, then it is a major contributor to the real economy. The choice becomes how to manage all our assets, including natural and human-made capital, more effectively and sustainably.

Second, we should be clear that expressing the value of ecosystem services in monetary units does not mean that they should be treated as private commodities that can be traded in private markets. Most ecosystem services are public goods that cannot or should not be privatized. Their value in monetary units is an estimate of their benefits to society expressed in units that communicate with a broad audience. It’s also possible to express these same tradeoffs in other units, such as land area, energy, or time.

However, using monetary units to express the value of ecosystem services can help to raise awareness of their importance to society and serve as a powerful and essential communication tool to inform better, more balanced decisions regarding trade-offs with policies that enhance GDP but damage ecosystem services.

Barbier: Another important point here is how we define ecosystem services. A key contribution of natural resource economics has been to treat the environment as a form of capital asset, or natural capital. But it has been long argued that the concept of natural capital should not be restricted just to those natural resources, such as minerals, fossil fuels, forests, agricultural land and fisheries, that supply the raw material and energy inputs to our economies. Nor should we consider the capacity of the natural environment to assimilate waste and pollution the only valuable “service” that it performs.

Read more

A new report by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives highlights twenty local government across the country that are taking the initiative to combat global warming.

The report follows up an earlier survey ICLEI did of 298 American cities, which found that 74 percent had perceived changes in the climate — including increased storm intensity, higher temperatures, and more precipitation. Almost two-thirds are pursuing adaptation planning for climate change, compared to 68 percent globally, and virtually all U.S. cities report difficulties acquiring funding for adaptation efforts. (Only Latin American cities reported similar levels of difficulty.) And over one-third of U.S. cities said the federal government does not understand the realities of climate change adaptation.

Several examples from ICLEI’s new report on local adaptation efforts include:

New York City, NY shouldered 43 deaths and $19 billion in damage from Superstorm Sandy. The city’s sustainability plan, PlaNYC, includes $2.4 billion in green infrastructure to capture rainwater through natural methods before it can flood. New York is requiring climate risk assessments for new developments in vulnerable areas, as is restoring 127 acres of wetlands that serve as a natural storm barrier.

Atlanta, GA has been seeing hotter seasons year-round, and an increasing urban heat island effect. In response, the city is finalizing a climate action plan that includes cool/reflective roof standards for new construction, requirements for use of “cool pavement,” increasing canopy coverage by 10,000 trees by 2013, and improving building efficiency.

Chicago, IL, is experiencing more frequent extreme heat and flooding, threatening extensive damage, especially to the city’s stormwater infrastructure. Chicago has responded with a landmark Climate Action Plan. They boast the greenest street in America, a pilot program they’re looking to scale up to a citywide design standard. They also lead the green roof industry in installations, with the most square feet set up, and are encouraging further green infrastructure

Eugene, OR is facing more ultra-dry conditions with the attendant possibility of wildfires. One major nearby fire produced enough smoke to threaten the health of Eugene’s more vulnerable residents. The city is also responding with a Community Climate and Energy Action plan, including ramping up water conservation, increasing energy efficiency, and promoting climate-adapted trees for public spaces.

Some of the remaining cities included in the report were Miami Dade County, FL; Houston, TX; Denver, CO; Salt Lake City, UT; and Washington, DC.

The rise in extreme weather events has highlighted the need to build greater resiliency into communities’ infrastructure, through both local and national policy, and how to rebuild better infrastructure in the wake of destructive events.

Our guest blogger is Tina Ramos, an Energy Research Associate at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today, FEMA Administrator and former Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management Craig Fugate reminded us that climate change and its effects are actually something that we must consider and plan for now, because the threats are not going away no matter how hard the GOP tries to convince us that they aren’t real.

“We don’t do a good job of communicating what we know [about how climate change will affect our communities],” said Administrator Fugate during the National Leadership Speaker Series on Resilience and Security in the 21st Century hosted by the U.S. Green Building Council and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) at the National Press Club this afternoon.

When I talk about climate resilience, I’m talking about how we need to forcefully communicate the risk we face in not building resilience to climate change at the local level, which might not have been in anyone’s experience previously.

The administrator stressed the importance of recognizing “total cost of ownership” in decision making that affects our nation’s and our communities’ futures. “People are starting to get a better sense of what total cost of ownership is. When you buy a car now, you don’t just ask how much it costs. You ask how many miles to the gallon the car gets.” You look at how present decisions have future consequences on your pocketbook and well-being.

The Administrator went on to explain that ignoring the current and future effects of climate change means not incorporating the true total cost in our decisions. “I owe you $18 billion,” he said. “The National Flood Insurance Program is underwritten by the taxpayers – did you know that? $18 billion was the money spent [on emergency services] during the hurricane season in 2005 alone,” when he was Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management.

“We cannot afford to continue to respond to disasters and deal with the consequences under the current model,” he warned. “Risk that is not mitigated, that is not considered in return on investment calculations, oftentime steps up false economies. We will reach a point where we can no longer subsidize this.”

Tea Party conspiracy theorists have decided that ICLEI’s support for climate resilience is part of an eco-Marxist United Nations plot to build a one-world government.

Ignoring the effects of climate change — until disaster has already happened and we are forced to clean up the mess on an emergency footing — is not a sustainable strategy. If lawmakers in Washington actually intend to make the fiscally responsible decisions they preach about, then they will follow the administrator’s warning and immediately develop a national strategy that at once mitigates the negative effects of climate change and begins to build resilience on the local level. Investing in climate resilience means reducing pollution and preparing for its unavoidable effects. Failure to act now will be paid for in ever-increasing amounts of America’s blood and treasure.

Download the Green Building & Climate Resilience report by the US Green Building Council and ICLEI.

Following the most damaging year of climate disasters in the United States in history, the insurance regulators in three states – California, Washington, and New York – announced that all major insurance companies operating in their states will be required to assess and publicly disclose the climate-change related risks they face, both in their underwriting as well as in their investment activities. Because of the consolidation of the insurance industry, this state-level action is effectively a national policy, as it affects 90 percent of the entire U.S. insurance market. Benjamin M. Lawsky, superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services, whose portfolio includes insurers, said in a statement that global warming pollution presents “unique risks” for the insurance industry to address:

Global warming presents unique risks, and it is vital that our insurance industry adequately account for the impacts of climate change. We look forward to working with the industry to address these important and growing risks.

Climate scientists have predicted broad-scale increases in extreme weather due to greenhouse pollution — particularly sea level rise, heat waves, drought, and extreme precipitation — for decades. The science that is of utmost important for the insurance industry to embrace is that these long-term trends are accelerating with the exponential increase in fossil fuel burning. Insurance models based on the assumption of a stable climate, using historical averages, are dangerously wrong.

Now, climatologists are starting to be able to quantify the influence of greenhouse pollution on specific events. In 2006, Dr. Kevin Trenberth estimated the global warming influence on the deadly 2005 hurricane season. Climate scientists broadly agree that the 2011 Texas drought shows a clear global warming signal, though different methodologies deliver different estimates. In future years, as disasters rise, climatologists will be able to better explain how changing the chemistry of our atmosphere and oceans with the burning of coal and oil is poisoning our weather.

The other unavoidable fact of manmade climate change is that no-one can truly prepare for what will happen. Climate scientists know that global warming is influencing the jet stream, El Nino cycles, and other mesoscale weather phenomena, but cannot predict how that influence will manifest in future decades. Hurricane intensity is expected to increase but future storm tracks and frequency are largely unknown. Even without a global warming influence, tornadoes and high-wind events are unpredictable. And the cumulative impacts of accelerating damage to transportation, agricultural, electrical, and other infrastructure are impossible to insure against.

With incidents of prolonged drought, rising sea levels, and flooding on the rise, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced a bill on Wednesday to require federal natural resource agencies to plan for the long-term effects of climate change, and encourage states to prepare natural resources adaptation plans. The Safeguarding America’s Future and Environment Act (SAFE) Act also would create a science advisory board to ensure that the planning uses the best available science. The proposed legislation would require the development of a coordinated national adaptation strategy:

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Panel shall develop a strategy to protect, restore, and conserve natural resources so that natural resources become more resilient, adapt to, and withstand the ongoing and expected impacts of climate variability and change.

It would also encourage, but not require, state-specific adaptation plans.

Effects of climate change mentioned as examples in the legislation are droughts and heatwaves, storms and floods; wildfires; outbreaks of forest pests and invasive species; flooding and erosion of coastal areas due to rising sea levels; melting glaciers and sea ice; thawing permafrost; shifting fish, wildlife, and plant population ranges; disruptive shifts in the timing of fish, wildlife, and plant natural history cycles, such as blooming, breeding, and seasonal migrations; and ocean acidification.

The legislation is cosponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), also a member of EPW. Baucus has repeatedly opposed action to limit climate change pollution.

Download the SAFE Act (as prepared for introduction).

The rapidly worsening climate system, destabilized by billions of tons of fossil fuel pollution, is ripping apart the security of the American people, one “freak” storm, drought, flood, fire at a time. In a piece inspired by the October snow storm, the New York Times describes how a broad swath of middle-class America — the millions of suburban and rural residents who rely on the above-ground electricity grid — is suffering from the new era of regular power outages from intense storms and floods that physically damage utility poles and lines:

Along with the now-familiar candles, downed trees across the driveway and the thawing hamburger meat taken from the freezer and tossed in the trash, the region’s latest freak storm, which left three million people without electricity, has left something else in its wake: increasing unease about just what is going on and what it means for the vast majority outside the relative stability of an underground urban power grid.

No one can know for sure if this is just the eternally unpredictable chaos of weather on earth or it is something more ominous; call it the new abnormal. But in recent years, suburban and rural residents have found themselves facing multiple disruptions like Mr. Frohne’s. Experts say the violent weather of the past few years in the Northeast is stressing the 20th century above-ground utility grid as never before, along with the people who depend on it.

Although the New York Times writer Peter Applebome pleaded ignorance about the “eternally unpredictable chaos of weather,” he at least quoted one suffering American who offered a cogent rebuke to his avoidance of climate reality.

“It’s global warming,” Sue Gress of New Canaan, Connecticut, told the Times. “No one wants to believe it, but things are changing. There’s much more violent weather, and we’re not prepared to deal with it.”

Gress has the science right. The existing increase in extreme precipitation events in the United States is unequivocal, and strongly linked to greenhouse pollution. The future — driven by the hyperexponential increase in greenhouse concentrations in recent decades — is guaranteed to bring even more devastating weather. The only uncertainty is in how quickly weather will become more extreme, and wherethe storms, floods, droughts, and heat waves of unprecedented ferocity will strike.

At the GreenGov conference in Washington on Wednesday, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) official David Kaufman agreed with that sentiment. He explained climate change is a significant driver of disaster vulnerability, but the real threat comes from the combination of climate change with other risk factors: migration into vulnerable areas, an aging population, and a overtaxed and declining infrastructure. Kaufman cautioned that too much disaster planning relies on a retrospective look at patterns of weather in the past, instead of recognizing the reality of changing climate risks.

Much of the suffering of the American families described in the New York Times story was avoidable. The fundamental responsibility lies at the feet of the fossil fuel industry that for decades has blocked the scientific urgency of reducing carbon pollution from becoming policy. The failure to address the consequences is similarly grave. “A report by the Edison Electric Institute updated at the end of 2010 said that over the past 10 years, at least 11 states studied putting utility lines underground — usually after devastating storms — only to find it too expensive,” Applebome writes. Of course, the report cautions that “underground is not completely immune to storm damage (e.g., flooding and damage to cables from uprooted trees).”

Economists who have attempted to assess the exposure of the American economy to climate change have generally delivered insane underestimates based on a naive presupposition that wealth insulates the nation against significant damage, ignoring the systemic risks from the rapidly growing, unprecedented global threat. Most climate scientists haven’t bothered to translate the data from their circulation models into information useful for policy makers. However, some scientists and economists are beginning to work together to provide a more realistic assessment of our nation’s unavoidable exposure to severe climate damages.

The next challenge is for the essential disciplines and industries involved in climate resilience, such as civil engineering, urban planning, journalism, and insurance, to throw out risk management tools based on the now-false assumption of a stable climate, and to work collectively to protect our society from the coming onslaught of the “angry beast” of a superheated climate.