Global warming is the primary contributor to accelerating global sea level rise

In tandem with the roundtable, UCS also released a fact sheet and an infographic on global warming and sea level rise.

View infographic

Global warming is causing ocean waters to warm and expand. It is also causing land-based ice (glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets) to melt and shrink, adding water to the oceans. Together, these mechanisms have caused global sea level to rise 8 inches since the Industrial Revolution.

Scientific projections show that, most likely, global sea level will rise an additional 6 to 16 inches above current levels by 2050, and 12 to 48 inches by 2100.

The East and Gulf coasts of the U.S. are sea level rise “hot spots,” facing higher and faster rates of local sea level rise than the global average. Local and regional factors such as ocean currents and land subsidence contribute to these above average rates of local sea level rise. For example, since 1880, Virginia Beach, VA has seen 30 inches of sea level rise; Atlantic City, NJ has seen 20 inches; New York City has seen 14 inches; Miami Beach, FL has seen 12 inches; and Wilmington, NC has seen 10 inches.

Officials on the front lines of response to costly sea level rise

Participants at the roundtable included over 25 officials and experts on the front lines of responding to the impacts of today’s sea level rise and preparing for the threats of the future. Cities and counties in southern Florida are already facing billions of dollars of expenditures to address problems caused or exacerbated by sea level rise. The cost of Sandy to the state of New York was estimated to be $32.8 billion, according to Governor Cuomo. New Jersey Governor Christie estimated the cost to his state from Sandy to be $29.4 billion.

Local officials are already starting to take important steps to help build coastal community resilience such as recommending elevation of structures, investing in shoreline protection, and assessing local risks and vulnerabilities. They shared their experiences and discussed best practices for protecting coastal communities. They also highlighted the need for a coordinated response across local, state, regional, and national levels to deal with these risks.

Speaking to the public about risks, choices, and opportunities

During the day, some officials also participated in a press conference that I helped moderate. The speakers included:

Kathryn Garcia, Chief Operating Officer, New York City Department of Environmental Protection; Stephen Marks, Assistant business administrator, City of Hoboken, New Jersey; Kristin Jacobs, Mayor, Broward County, Florida; Clay Bernick, Environment & Sustainability Administrator, City of Virginia Beach, Virginia; Phil Prete, Senior environmental planner, City of Wilmington, North Carolina; and  Joe Vietri, Director, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) National Planning Center for Coastal Risk Reduction and Sandy Comprehensive Study.

News reports from the press conference highlight the challenges that coastal communities face from storm surge and flooding. But it was also very encouraging to note that these officials recognize that addressing climate change is a key part of responding to these risks.

As Stephen Marks of Hoboken said, “The debate about climate change is essentially over. Hurricane Sandy settled that for, I would say, a majority of the residents of our city.” The city, a 2-square-mile municipality of 50,000 people, was overwhelmed by 500 million gallons of Hudson River water during Sandy.

Kristin Jacobs, Mayor of Broward County, is a veteran at dealing with the impacts of sea level rise. Many parts of the Atlantic coast of Florida now routinely face flooding during high tides, especially during the “King Tides” (which occur when the earth, sun, and moon are in such an alignment as to create the greatest gravitational pull on the ocean waters and therefore especially high tides). Jacobs is a founding member of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, a joint commitment of Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties to partner in mitigating the causes and adapting to the consequences of climate change.

Joe Vietri, representing the USACE, signaled that the Corps is attempting to incorporate the reality of climate change into its future efforts to protect the US shoreline. He is heading up the Sandy Comprehensive Study authorized by Congress “to address the flood risks of vulnerable coastal populations in areas impacted by Hurricane Sandy within the boundaries of the North Atlantic Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.” With Sandy, he said “What we really got a glimpse at was our collective future.”

Emergency preparedness and long-term planning

The officials recognized the need to plan better for storms like Sandy, including strategies for coping with flooding, power outages, downed infrastructure, closing down of transit, emergency evacuations, and supplying basic needs to affected people. However, they also noted the importance of a more long-term framework of planning so that communities are in a better place to cope with emergencies when they arise.

For example, Vietri noted that local communities have some difficult choices to make about their future development. “You still have communities rebuilding almost exactly where they were prior to the storm coming,” Vietri said at the press conference. “You continue to have a situation where we have a tremendous population density living in high-hazard areas.”

Driving forward the preparedness conversation

The rich discussions at the roundtable showed a clear need for and willingness of local officials to engage in a locally-informed conversation about effectively responding to sea level rise and its impacts. Sharing lessons across state boundaries is critical. To take this to the next level, similar conversations need to also happen at the regional and national level. And they must also involve policy makers who are willing to put the interests of their constituents, who are already facing climate impacts, above narrow party-line ideologies.

Feature image: Courtesy of Miami Dade County Permitting, Environment and Regulatory Affairs

The proposed standard for cutting emissions from new power plants is a good start

The standard the EPA proposed last year (published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2012) was 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity (lbs CO₂/MWh) for new fossil-fired power plants. This is a standard that can easily be met by a new natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant which produces emissions of approximately 800 lbs CO₂/MWh. New coal plants would have to implement carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to meet this standard. Widely available low- and zero-carbon resources like renewable energy and energy efficiency can also help meet our energy needs and reduce carbon emissions.

A single standard for all fossil-fired power plants is the best way to set this standard. NGCC technology is readily available and in wide use today. The CCS-averaging provision included as a compliance option in the standard also allows for a potential way for coal plants with CCS to comply with the standard over time. Setting a separate standard for coal and natural gas-fired plants would greatly weaken the standard’s ability to ensure a transition away from building high carbon electricity generation sources. This transition is already underway due to market forces and the standard would simply serve as an insurance policy.

We also need a carbon standard for existing power plants because, of course, that’s where today’s emissions come from. The carbon standards for new plants were supposed to be a stepping stone for getting there. Earlier this week, EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe signaled that the EPA would move forward with the existing source standards in fiscal year 2014 – which is the first time there has been any clarity on that timing – but provided no further details on process or substance.

Our heat-trapping emissions, including those from burning fossil fuels to generate power, are fueling climate change. And if we needed a reminder of the kinds of serious risks and costs climate change could bring, the storm surge from Hurricane Sandy, which rode in on higher seas, more than provided that. Several recent polls show that Americans clearly support actions to address climate change, and they have a growing recognition of the reality of what global warming may mean for our daily lives and pocketbooks.

Recent weather extremes signal growing climate risks and costs

2012 was the hottest year on record for the contiguous United States, and by a significant margin.

The 2012-2013 Drought in America and the coastal flooding and storm damage caused by Hurricane Sandy have had a devastatingly costly effect on Americans. Recent estimates from the insurance industry put economic costs at $65-70 billion for Sandy and $35 billion (so far) for the drought, which continues to persist in many parts of the U.S.

Recent years have also brought intense heat waves, wildfires, torrential rain, flooding, low snowpack in the Western U.S., and record-low water levels in the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River.

In all, the U.S. experienced 11 extreme weather events that cost over $1 billion apiece in 2012 and 14 such events in 2011. Climate change is already an important contributor to many of these events such as heat waves, coastal flooding, extreme precipitation, and drought. Projections of future climate change show that the risks of some types of extreme events and their impacts will continue to increase if our emissions continue unabated.

Power plant carbon standards underscore market trend away from coal-fired power generation

Coal-fired power has long been the major source of electricity generation in the U.S. but that is changing quite rapidly for a number of reasons, including the poor economic outlook for the aging, inefficient, and polluting coal fleet – especially in light of competition from cleaner source like natural gas and renewable energy. Energy Information Administration projections show that very few new coal-fired power plants are likely to be built through 2040. Existing coal-fired power plants are being retired at record rates and our research shows that many more are candidates for closure.

This shift away from coal has been the most important driver for recent falling carbon emissions from energy use in the U.S.  Power plant carbon standards will help ensure that this is a sustained trend and not simply a temporary blip in response to currently low natural gas prices. History shows that those natural gas prices could begin to climb back up – indeed they are a dollar higher now than they were a year ago. It would be foolish to bet the health of our climate system on something so volatile.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency are the best way to lower carbon emissions

Earlier this week, my colleague Steve Clemmer wrote about a new UCS report that shows that renewable energy is ramping up at notable levels in the U.S. As he says: Wind and solar power increased nearly four-fold in the United States from 2007 to 2012, and in 2012 provided more than half of the total new electricity generating capacity installed in the country.

Previously, I wrote about how a well-designed carbon standard for existing power plants that includes investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency as compliance options can further help ramp up those resources.

Looking for leadership from the EPA and White House

The EPA has taken several important steps recently that show its commitment to lowering harmful emissions and addressing the public health burden of our energy use. These include historic new fuel economy standards for medium- and light-duty vehicles and the power plant mercury standard.

But there are still some important steps that remain. Proposing and finalizing power plant carbon standards for both new and existing power plants must be a near-term priority. Delay is bad for the climate, bad for Americans facing the pollution impacts of power plants, and bad for utilities that need to make long-term investment decisions. There is huge public support for these standards – indeed the EPA received a record-setting number (3 million!) supportive comments.

Gina McCarthy, the Obama Administration’s nominee for the job of EPA Administrator, clearly understands the science of climate change and the importance of the EPA’s actions in reducing global warming emissions.

In his State of the Union remarks President Obama spoke powerfully of doing more to combat climate change for the sake of future generations and he made clear that if Congress failed to act soon on climate change, he would. In recent remarks he seemed to indicate that he would also be speaking out more forcefully to explain why tackling climate change is good for our economy.

Heather Zichal, President Obama’s top advisor on climate and energy, recently commented that the power plant carbon standard will be finalized in the “not-too-distant future.”

This is all somewhat reassuring. But only somewhat. Until we actually see the rule for new power plants and a firm timeline for the one for existing power plants, I’ll remain wary. Washington politics and the machinations of the fossil fuel lobby have scuttled progress on climate action before. Clear, unwavering commitment from the highest levels of the Administration will be needed to ensure that the outcome will be different this time.

To quote President Obama: “The most important thing that it’s going to take is people in Washington who are willing to speak truth to power, are willing to take some risks politically, are willing to get a little bit out ahead of the curve.”

Community resilience leaders being honored at the White House Champions of Change event. Credit: Chrissy Elles, UCS

The 2012-2013 Drought in America and the coastal flooding caused by Hurricane Sandy are just two recent examples of extreme weather events that have had a devastatingly costly effect on Americans. Recent estimates from the insurance industry put economic costs at $65-70 billion for Sandy and $35 billion (so far) for the drought.

For the most part, we’ve dealt with these events in a reactionary way, as if they were discrete unconnected emergencies. It’s time for a different approach—one that takes a more considered long-term and comprehensive look at our risks and exposure to climate impacts, and helps prepare for and contain those risks as much as possible.

And who better to guide that conversation than folks who are helping build resilient communities all across the country right now?

One of those people is Dr. Jennifer Jurado, the Natural Resources Management and Planning Director of Broward County. Dr. Jurado’s current work focuses on water resource management in a part of Florida where sea-level rise is already a serious problem and there is a growing risk of intrusion of salt water into local groundwater aquifers.

Dr. Jurado played an active role in the Southeast Florida Climate Compact, formed by Broward, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach Counties in January 2010 to coordinate mitigation and adaptation activities across county lines. They are at the forefront of coastal communities that are recognizing their climate risks and stepping up to respond, as evidenced by their recent climate action plan.

Another is Caroline Lewis, the founder and executive director of the CLEO Institute, based in Pinecrest Gardens, FL. The Institute’s mission is furthering climate science education. Its Climate Project seeks to build a large interdisciplinary and multi-format conversation around the subject of climate change. Listen to Caroline’s response to the question: What is climate change all about, and what’s my role?

My colleague, Chrissy Elles, attended the event today and sent me some of her thoughts and photos:

Jennifer Jurado, Chrissy Elles and Caroline Lewis at the White House Champions of Change event. Credit: Chrissy Elles, UCS

From professional snowboarder Jeremy Jones, the founder of Protect Our Winters, to Kimberly Hill Knott of Detroit Climate Action Collaborative, to Florida’s Dr. Jennifer Jurado and Caroline Lewis, it was wonderful to be at the White House today to honor 12 community leaders working on the front lines of climate change. These community leaders understand the costly consequences of a warming world and are rolling up their sleeves to make our communities stronger, safer, and more resilient to the impacts of climate change. This is hard work, and these community leaders can’t do it alone: we need national action on climate change. With the president’s recent statements calling for climate action in both his Inaugural address and the State of the Union, I hope we will see national action on climate change—such as standards to limit carbon pollution from power plants—as soon as possible.

Power plant carbon standards must be a top priority for the Obama Administration

In his inaugural address President Obama signaled that his Administration is committed to taking serious action to address climate change. One clear early way to deliver on that promise is to finalize the standard for new power plants that was proposed last year.

The EPA should also make a proposal for a carbon standard for existing power plants by the end of this year and ensure that it too is finalized as soon as possible thereafter. News reports indicate that the President might make mention of the carbon standard in his State of the Union address on February 12. Specifics will be important.

Why we need strong carbon standards

The EPA released its latest greenhouse gas (GHG) data yesterday, which show that fossil-fired power plants remain the largest source of U.S. global warming emissions, producing approximately a third of total U.S. emissions. These emissions have dropped in recent years as the electric sector has moved away from coal and toward more natural gas-fired power plants and renewable energy, as well as because of lower energy demand due to energy efficiency measures and a slack economy. The data show power sector emissions were 4.6 percent lower in 2011 than the previous year. However, these reductions are nowhere near enough to help drive overall U.S. emissions down in line with climate goals.

It’s also worth noting that the data show that refineries were the third largest source of GHG emissions in 2011. The EPA was supposed to set carbon standards for refineries by December 2011 under a settlement agreement reached in 2010. We have yet to hear a new schedule for these standards.

World Resources Institute just released a report today that emphasizes the importance of carbon standards in helping the U.S. reduce its emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, a commitment that the U.S. articulated at the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009. According to the report authors, emissions reductions from power plants and natural gas systems under the Clean Air Act represent “two of the top opportunities for substantial GHG reductions between now and 2035.”

How renewable energy can help achieve a strong carbon standard

A carbon standard for existing power plants must help ensure that over time we transition away from fossil fuel-fired generation sources such as coal and natural gas to clean, renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar power (alongside strong energy efficiency measures). To accelerate that transition, we need a strong standard that will level the playing field for low carbon sources like renewable energy. But we also need some flexibilities that could provide extra incentives to ramp up renewable energy and energy efficiency, while keeping costs affordable.

One way the EPA could do that is to allow renewable energy and energy efficiency to count as compliance options to help meet a strong carbon standard. This would, for example, give power plant owners the option to reduce their overall emissions rate by investing in new renewable energy generation. To ensure that this flexibility delivers additional emissions reductions beyond what would have happened anyway, the investments must be over and above what would be required to meet existing state renewable energy or energy efficiency standards (RES and EERS). This could be a way to encourage states to build on existing RES and EERS policies.

NRDC recently published an innovative proposal that has some of these elements, with a focus primarily on energy efficiency investments as an alternative compliance mechanism.

Renewable energy is here and ready

As my colleague Jeff Deyette pointed out earlier this week, renewable energy is already being ramped up at record levels. 2012 saw over 13 gigawatts of wind and an estimated 3,200 megawatts of solar PV capacity installed. What we need now are enhanced policies and incentives to further decarbonize our electricity sector, including carbon standards, a national renewable energy standard, tax incentives, and a price on carbon.

Congress and fossil fuel lobby likely to continue to obstruct progress on climate change

Even though the proposed carbon standard for new power plants is simply underlining a market-driven shift away from coal that is already underway, there is bound to be opposition from the usual foes of climate action in Congress. It is very likely that when the carbon standard for new power plants is finalized there will be an immediate push in Congress to block it using provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Originally intended to protect the interests of small businesses, the CRA was regularly abused by the last Congress (and likely will be with the new one) to promote highly partisan ideological agendas. In particular, it has been used to attempt to block the EPA from taking action to reduce pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a political group funded in part by fossil fuel interests, has gone as far as proffering “model legislation” targeting EPA regulation of GHGs on the basis of a claim that there is a “lack of evidence that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases will endanger public health or welfare.”

Bipartisan action on climate

Recent extreme weather events — including Hurricane Sandy and the ongoing drought in the Midwest — highlight the fact that climate change and its impacts are of critical importance to the health and economic well-being of Americans. We need our Senators and Representatives to show some backbone and be willing to work across party lines to ensure that carbon standards for power plants can move forward quickly. Regardless, it is the administration’s responsibility to show leadership, stand strong, and deliver on these standards alongside other actions to lower emissions and prepare for climate change.

New York and New Jersey break new ground in responding to coastal sea level rise

Governor Christie recently signed emergency regulations adopting FEMA’s updated flood maps in New Jersey’s post-Sandy rebuilding efforts. This comes on the heels of news that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo would like to use that state’s Recreate NY-Smart Home program to encourage people to relocate from areas at high risk from flooding related to sea level rise.

Could it be that we are in a new era of recognizing and responding to the threat of sea level rise? This is not going to be an easy conversation and there are no silver bullet solutions. But the good news might be that we have finally begun to grapple with the reality of what climate change means in our daily lives and how we can collectively rise to the challenge of taking action.

Climate change, sea level rise, and our growing exposure to risks

Climate change contributes to sea level rise in important ways: higher temperatures are contributing to melting of glaciers and land-based ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica, and they also cause thermal expansion of ocean waters. Even if temperatures increases were to somehow slow, sea level rise will continue to increase well into the future because of the lag time in how these impacts play out. And it turns out that the Northeast Atlantic Coast of the U.S. (North of Cape Hatteras) is a particular hot spot for sea level rise with recent rates of sea level rise increases that were three to four times higher than the global average.

Those rising sea levels are exacerbating coastal flooding, particularly related to storm surge in the wake of coastal storms. Hurricane Sandy packed an additional punch because of its unfortunate, but not unlikely, coincidence with high tides.

Added to this is an established and growing trend for population growth and economic development along our coasts that is putting more people and more valuable assets at risk, as well as eroding natural protective barriers to coastal storms.

Why do FEMA’s new flood maps matter?

FEMA’s coastal flood maps provide an important starting point for understanding risks of flooding. They are also used to set insurance rates for coastal properties. In particular, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are used to determine flood insurance requirements for residents and where floodplain development regulations apply in a community. The maps were recently updated by FEMA, as periodically required by Congress, so that they accurately reflect the latest assessment of flood hazards. They show that more areas farther inland are expected to flood. They will be finalized in the next year or two.

The new maps are not final yet, and they don’t fully account for the latest projections of sea level rise as corroborated by a FEMA official. Nevertheless, FEMA’s updated recommendations can help improve post-Sandy rebuilding decisions. FEMA’s Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs) reflect the “1%-annual-chance flood elevations and flood zones” in an area. Compliance with the specifications of the ABFEs can help lower the costs of insurance for a property owner. And Governor Christie is directing his state to proactively use these new ABFEs, with an additional margin of safety, so that property owners can lessen their exposure to future losses.

The Biggert-Waters Insurance Reform Act of 2012

The 2012 Flood Insurance Reform Act (also known as the Biggert-Waters Insurance Reform Act of 2012) may bring further improvements to FEMA’s flood maps because it includes provisions to “allow FEMA to update FIRMs to include “relevant information and data” on flood hazards caused by land-use changes, and “future changes in sea levels, precipitation, and intensity of hurricanes,” among other things”. It could also help reduce some of the perverse insurance incentives that exacerbate our exposure to economic losses from flooding.

Making smart choices along our coasts

Climate change is already underway so there’s no question that we will have to deal with increased risk of coastal flooding along the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. We cannot avoid all losses but the question is: can we make smarter choices about where and how we build, so that we don’t continue to put increasing numbers of people and expensive property in harm’s way?

Our choices are pretty stark: we can try to accommodate the rising seas, retreat from them, defend our properties with protective measures – or take the riskiest path and do nothing. What’s critical to highlight is that any smart choice we make must take into account unique local geographic, geologic, socioeconomic, and environmental characteristics of our coastal communities. Not all choices may be available or preferable in a particular location, and some combination of them may make the most sense in some instances. And over time our choices may change as sea level rise increases and forecloses some options, as new engineering solutions emerge, or as we develop a deeper understanding of the risks and tradeoffs we face.

Lowering global warming emissions is still urgent

We cannot lose sight of the fact that, even as we work to adapt to unfolding climate change, it remains as urgent as ever to make deep reductions in our global warming emissions. That’s the only sure way to limit the magnitude of future climate impacts.

States lead the way

Governor Christie and Governor Cuomo are taking some pretty unprecedented – and yet common sense – positions. Essentially, this is a call for us to take our heads out of the sand and acknowledge the risks we face in the “new normal.” Simply continuing current patterns of development and rebuilding as before will no longer be optimal or even possible in some cases.

Reconstruction decisions must be informed by good science. Maps that have updated information about coastal flooding zones and account for future projections of sea level rise will provide crucial information to coastal dwellers, for insurers, and for those who buy insurance. Without that, people cannot make smart choices about how best to protect themselves. And we would have a huge market failure with insurance premiums that don’t accurately represent the true risk of investment choices.

But this is not about simply raising costs for coastal dwellers. We also have to provide equitable ways for people to make different and better choices about where they live or rebuild – and that is what Governor Cuomo seems to be talking about. For an individual person in a place with high risk of coastal flooding, relocating their home or business could be costly – and yet not relocating could mean being exposed to similar risks in the future. Using some of the emergency funding for Sandy recovery to provide options to rebuild in safer areas seems a prudent long-term investment, both for the individual and for us as taxpayers. Without that, taxpayers (who fund the National Flood Insurance Program and emergency response packages) could be on the hook for repetitive losses in areas prone to flooding. Similarly, if people choose to rebuild in the same place there should be incentives to build “stronger and higher” to help protect against rising seas.

Will the nation follow?

In his inaugural speech, President Obama used strong language to call attention to the reality of climate change and the need to respond saying, “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.” Now we need him to follow through, alongside Congress, detailing specific mitigation and adaptation actions to respond to climate change.

Feature image: b0jangles, Flickr Commons

Approximately 66 percent of the contiguous U.S. is currently in severe, extreme, or exceptional drought. Many of these same areas were in drought six months ago – and even as far back as 2009 in the case of Texas. Below normal precipitation and/or above normal temperatures are expected to persist in some parts of the country that are already drought-stricken, such as the south central and southwestern U.S and the Gulf coast states.

American farmers continue to face challenging conditions

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released its crop production summary for 2012 which shows the severe impact of last year’s historic drought. Corn production for 2012 was 10.8 billion bushels, 13 percent below the 2011 crop, and yield per acres was 16 percent below 2011 levels – a cruel blow to farmers who had started the growing season expecting a bumper crop. Hay production was at the lowest level since 1964, which had serious consequences for the livestock industry.

The forecast for this year’s spring growing season is not much improved, especially with the already low soil moisture conditions caused by last year’s drought. As the National Weather Service says: Soil moisture is currently very low across the southern plains, and with elevated chances of below median precipitation amounts predicted for the remainder of winter, it appears that dry soil conditions will persist into spring.

Water supplies at risk

Texas has been hit particularly hard by what is now a multi-year severe drought, affecting crops, livestock, and water supplies, and causing significant wildfires. In December 2012, Governor Rick Perry made a disaster proclamation, renewing a similar proclamation he had made in July 2011, and stating that “exceptional drought conditions pose a threat of imminent disaster.”

The Texas Water Development Board’s latest water plan is an urgent call for attention to the fact that Texas does not and will not in the future have enough water to meet its needs in the event of serious droughts like the current one. The long-term implications are substantial. Without significant action, in 2060 water shortages caused by drought could lead to roughly $116 billion in lost income for Texas businesses and workers, lost state and local taxes totaling $9.8 billion, and lost jobs of 1.1 million. It is no wonder then that the issue of water shortages and conservation measures is attracting the full attention of state political leaders.

Record low Mississippi water levels exact economic toll on barge traffic

The drought has also meant record low water levels on the Mississippi river, which is making it difficult for water transportation of critical goods like grain, oil, chemicals, and coal. Delays or closures affecting commercial barge traffic along portions of the river will result in expected losses of about $7 billion through the end of January, according to barging industry officials.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is engaged in a massive project to keep navigation channels open, part of which involves excavating the rock bed of the river near Thebes, Ill. The project is expected to cost $10 million.

Grappling with new climate realities

Recent extreme weather events like this extended drought have exacted a heavy economic and human toll on Americans. The risks of some kinds of extreme weather like drought, heat waves, extreme precipitation, and flooding are likely to increase with climate change. This is a reality we all have to grapple with and respond to in a responsible way. Furthermore, as my colleague Alden Meyer blogged today, the Obama administration must show leadership in setting out a comprehensive strategy to lower emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases and increase the resilience of communities and ecosystems to the mounting impacts of climate change.

The growing risk that we may reach 2°C is an ever more urgent reminder that we must make swift, deep emissions reductions and invest in building resilience to the worsening climate impacts that we are locking in.

This is a moment for sober stock-taking (i.e. not the usual passing-the-buck, gratuitous finger-pointing, or creative emissions accounting — all of which are currently much in evidence at the UNFCCC negotiations underway in Doha) of why we’ve failed to act despite the very real risks of climate change that are even now starting to affect millions of people. And it provides a renewed sense of urgency that we must take all prudent steps to keep future temperature increases as low as possible. To do otherwise would be risking the health and well-being of people and our planet now and in the future.

Why the 2°C goal matters

The 2°C goal for climate action has been broadly endorsed by the world’s leaders, first at the G8 summit in Aquila in July 2009 and then later by a much larger group of countries at the Copenhagen climate talks in December 2009. (Several countries have endorsed an even lower target of 1.5°C, including the small island states, and most African countries and other least developed countries, which are and will be most seriously affected by climate change.)

In some sense, from a scientific point of view, the exact numeric target has always been an arbitrary choice. The relationship between atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and temperature increases is a probabilistic one. Global temperature increases occur on a continuum over time and their impacts often play out over even longer time scales. There’s no magic “stop button” at 2°C. But scientists have warned about the growing dangers as we get close to 2°C and go beyond it. One of the most riveting portrayals of this is the familiar “burning embers” graphic.

The risks of harmful effects from global warming rise with its magnitude. This figure shows that even a 2°C rise in global temperature poses significant risks. The left-hand panel is based on the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (TAR). The right-hand panel is an updated version from 2009 based on Smith et. al.  Source: Adapted from Smith et al 2009; Schneider 2009.

So what 2°C represents is a policy consensus informed by climate science. Accepting that goal was supposed to motivate programs of deep emissions reductions around the world that would help fulfill it and thereby help lessen some of the worst consequences of climate change.

Why the prospects of staying below 2°C look so grim

In a nutshell, the reason we are failing so far to meet our global goal is a complete and utter lack of political will and sense of urgency in major emitting countries. It seems fruitless to point fingers at individual major emitting countries when the fact is that none are doing what they need to do. The stalemate at Doha only further highlights this (although I still hold out hope for a breakthrough in the final hours of the negotiations).

We have the technologies and know the policies that are needed to deliver deep emissions reductions. That is definitely NOT what’s held us back. We know that because we’ve seen several of them adopted around the world, just not at the scale and speed at which we need them to come online.

Why it is all the more urgent that we take all prudent steps to limit further temperature increases

Of course, it is of foremost importance that we put pressure on our political leaders to live up to their promise to limit global temperature increases to no more than 2°C. But if they fail to deliver, let’s remember that climate impacts and risks only increase (in non-linear and sometimes irreversible ways) with temperature increases so it is still important to limit those increases as much as possible. We have to double down, not give up!

Here in the U.S. the political prospects for comprehensive climate and energy legislation seem dim, but nevertheless this call to action from scientists and economists to U.S. policymakers is as relevant today as the day it was first released.

The risks of a ‘Beyond 2°C’ world

As the recent World Bank report on the risks of a 4°C world points out, the burden of climate risks will fall disproportionately on poorer countries. Countries like Bangladesh, India, Mexico, and Indonesia have large populations that will face increasing risks from rising sea levels, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa will be increasingly vulnerable to widespread droughts and food crises.

Rising temperatures will likely also lead to increases in tropical cyclone intensity, which are likely to be felt disproportionately in low-latitude regions (Typhoon Bopha, which has had a catastrophic impact on the Philippines, formed at an unusually low latitude and may be an example of this phenomenon); extreme heat waves, which are likely to affect many parts of the world; and loss of vital ecosystems like coral reefs, which are at risk from ocean acidification.

Even here in the U.S., we have recently experienced a spate of devastating extreme weather events — such as the Drought of 2012 and Hurricane Sandy — that have likely links to climate change. It’s past time that we had in place a serious national plan to lower emissions and build resilience in the face of climate change that is already unfolding. Our obligations to the international community, especially to those countries that are least responsible for generating emissions and yet are facing the most severe consequences of climate change, should also be clear.

World Bank President Dr. Jim Yong Kim’s foreword to the recent report opens with the sentence “It is my hope that this report shocks us into action….” As we teeter on the brink of a ‘beyond 2°C’ world, I hope indeed that the world’s leaders will be galvanized into action.

The following commentary is from UCS Western States Climate Economist Jasmin Ansar:

California’s first carbon auction went off without a hitch. News reports show that investors and regulators appeared pleased with the outcome of California’s first auction of carbon allowances, and both groups expressed confidence that the newly created cap-and-trade market would significantly reduce future carbon pollution, helping California attain its AB 32 emission goals.

Auction results

The results of the auction announced by the California Air Resources Board showed that all ‘current’ 2013 allowances, totaling 23.1 million tons, were sold at a price of $10.09, nine cents above the regulator’s minimum (reserve) price of $10 per ton. In addition, about 14 percent of the advance 2015 allowances were sold for $10 per ton. The buyers in the auction were primarily major polluters who will need to pay for their carbon emissions starting in 2013.

The broader public should also be sanguine about the auction results. There was no evidence of any market impropriety, and bidding was brisk for the current auction, with bid volume being three times greater than the volume for sale.

One slightly puzzling result did emerge. The current auction had a much larger bid volume than did the advance auction, where only 5.5 million out of 39.5 million available 2015 allowances were sold. This could mean that companies are waiting to buy these 2015 allowances closer to the compliance date, or possibly, that companies are planning to ramp up new programs to abate future emissions and expect these programs to be more profitable than investments in carbon allowances.

Future auctions

The successful completion of this first auction bodes well for future quarterly auctions starting in 2013. The first auction in 2013 is scheduled for February 19, 2013. We can expect more market activity to occur at the end of compliance periods, in 2015, 2018, and 2021, as companies will then face stiff penalties if assigned emission permits have not been surrendered.

The following commentary is from UCS Western States Climate Economist Jasmin Ansar:

California’s first carbon allowance auction

On November 14, California officially launched its cap-and-trade program by offering 23 million vintage 2013 allowances and 39.5 million 2015 vintage carbon allowances for sale. California’s cap-and-trade program has significant potential to limit statewide carbon emissions, which contribute to climate change, while providing new economic opportunities for California.

Fossil fuel industries and their allies have repeatedly tried to undermine the program and even filed a last-minute lawsuit to try to stall the auction. But the auction went ahead as planned. (See this early legal analysis which showed why the lawsuit was unlikely to prevail.) Results of the auction will be released on November 19.

The significance of the inaugural auction on November 14 is that for the first time polluters in the state will pay a price for their pollution damage. Preliminary indications are that the first set of allowances are likely to be priced about the floor price of $10 per metric ton, with prices rising later on by 2015 when allowances for the first compliance period (2013-2014) must be surrendered.

Under cap-and-trade, carbon polluters will be required to have a permit (or allowance) for each ton of CO₂ they emit. Initially, the permits will be allocated for free in certain industries, based on polluters’ levels of production. In other industries, the permits will be allocated by auction, going to the highest bidders. In both cases, permits can be resold in a secondary market, which means they will end up being transferred from firms that reduce carbon emissions to those with higher costs of abatement. This trading feature is designed to achieve an overall reduction in emissions at the lowest possible cost, which will benefit the economy by keeping price impacts low.

Benefits to the economy and the environment

Allowance trading gives polluters financial incentives to reduce emissions in many ways: by improving energy efficiency, by using renewable energy, and by employing alternative production technologies. The system allows businesses to decide for themselves how to best meet their obligations, while rewarding businesses that reduce emissions. Indeed, the cap-and-trade system will be a catalyst for new investment opportunities that conserve environmental resources.

Though the proof will be in the pudding, just the anticipation of the cap-and-trade market has already resulted in California becoming a magnet for clean tech investment and venture capital, which has stimulated job growth and innovation in the state.

California’s cap-and-trade program will be the second largest in the world, just behind the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. In addition, this program will yield residents of California significant public health benefits because lower emissions will improve local air quality. They will also benefit from cost savings as increased energy efficiency limits the price impacts of cap-and-trade.

Resistance by refineries

While the cap-and-trade system is expected to benefit most residents in California, there are industrial entities, like the oil and cement companies, who will be asked to pay more to cover their pollution costs. Fossil fuel industries such as Valero and Tesoro, who financed Proposition 23, which attempted to derail the landmark climate legislation, are continuing their efforts to undermine the program.

The oil companies in particular are arguing that all the allowances be given to them for free so that they face no pollution costs. UCS estimates that the value of this hand-out is over $2 billion and does not support this public donation especially given the recent record-high profits and poor emission reduction performance of the refineries.

Oil, gas, and coal companies do not want to pay for their burning of fossil fuels and are intent on undermining the cap-and-trade program. They would prefer to continue using the atmosphere as a free garbage dump. In addition, they are financially threatened by clean-energy products, renewable fuels, and energy efficient industries that may render their industry the outdated “horse and buggy” as compared to the new carbon-free technologies. So far, the responsible regulatory agency, the California Air Resources Board, has resisted efforts at political grandstanding by these fossil-fuel companies.

All eyes on California

California has long been the leader in the design of environmental policies. The state has an impressive record of leading the nation in new vehicle emission standards and energy efficiency standards.

The California cap-and-trade program continues this tradition and could be a model for other states and countries around the world. If, as expected, substantial environmental benefits accrue while the costs of clean energy come down, then California’s success may have a demonstration effect, causing carbon-reduction programs to sprout in other places. That would be truly historic.

Learn more about the auction, including a quote from Jasmin, in this NPR clip.

Losses from Sandy

Lost lives and a lost sense of security can never be reduced to dollars and cents. Nor can we put a price on the lost sense of place so many people feel — for example, those who live near and have enjoyed summers on the New Jersey Shore. But the costs we can count — the destroyed and damaged homes and infrastructure, the loss of valuable possessions — even those are unprecedented.

Insurance industry and other expert estimates put the economic costs of Sandy at $30-50 billion for the East Coast of the U.S. If that high estimate bears out, then Sandy will be the second most expensive storm in the U.S. after Katrina.

And this cost estimate does not include the huge blow that Sandy dealt to Caribbean nations, including Haiti, Jamaica, and Cuba. (65 people lost their lives in Haiti and 70 percent of its crops have been destroyed.) Nor does it include the loss of lives or the costs of human pain and suffering. It also does not include costs covered by FEMA, which after Katrina was $2 to $2.5 for every dollar of losses covered by private insurance.

Our vulnerable coasts

Aerial photo of Mantoloking, New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. Photo credit: Greg Thompson/USFWS

More than anything, Sandy exposed how vulnerable we are along the East Coast of the U.S. According to the latest census data, 52 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal counties (excluding Alaska). 37.3 million people (12 percent of the nation’s population) live in the coastal areas of states stretching from North Carolina to Texas — the areas most threatened by Atlantic hurricanes. We have built our homes, communities, and major economic centers — including the nerve center of our free market economy, Wall Street — in the path of coastal storms, storm surges, and floods.

In 2007, the value of insured property in coastal counties in East coast and Gulf states was approximately $8.9 trillion, with coastal counties in New York and Florida ranking the highest at approximately $2.4 trillion each. Furthermore, as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, taxpayers are currently responsible for $527 billion of insured assets in the coastal floodplain of the U.S.

Sandy’s blow to critical infrastructure

An initial survey of damage in New York City from Hurricane Sandy highlights the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure like mass transit (subways), power systems, roads, trains, airports, tunnels, and wastewater treatment plants. The closure of the nation’s largest subway system and some of its busiest airports translates into millions of dollars of economic loss.

New York City skyline with extensive blackout after Hurricane Sandy. Credit: David Shankbone

According to the New York Times, “Five of New York’s 14 wastewater treatment plants are in the lowest-lying areas of the city, within the mandatory evacuation zone. When the plants get filled to capacity or flooded, sewage and stormwater mix and bypass the plant, flowing directly into New York’s waterways — and now, into flooded streets and buildings.” Apart from the damage and clean-up costs, this creates conditions that threaten public health.

New Jersey Natural Gas (NJNG) was forced to completely shut off natural gas infrastructure that serves hurricane-damaged parts of the coastal barrier islands and Long Beach Island, because of leaks in the pipelines and subsequent salt water intrusion. This has disrupted service to approximately 28,000 customers and in Seaside Heights, NJ, officials estimate it could take 6-8 months to fix the system completely. With the weather turning colder, NJNG has made a request to FEMA for up to 5,100 electric space heaters and recommended residents move to local Red Cross shelters in the meantime.

Making our country’s vital infrastructure more climate resilient

Our failure, thus far, to limit global warming emissions means that we are already locked into significant climate risks like rising sea levels. We urgently need to take steps to prepare for these risks — including common-sense measures like investing in making our country’s vital infrastructure more resilient.

A 2009 report from the American Society of Civil Engineers, gave much of America’s infrastructure a dismal grade of ‘D’. Unfortunately, ASCE gave even worse ratings to infrastructure that is especially critical and/or vulnerable under a changing climate, such as levees, dams, wastewater treatment, and drinking water management.

Seawalls and magical thinking

The tragedy of Sandy has forced us to face new realities and start a conversation that has been long overdue. It has been heartening to see so much news coverage on the need to better prepare for extreme weather events. Some have pointed to gates or walls — which could, in some cases, provide a short- to medium-term coastal defense. But they come at a high cost (well over $10 billion for New York City alone to build protective barriers) and take years to build. And they can adversely affect natural defenses like barrier islands and wetlands.

I fear some of these proposals are also a result of magical thinking: A hope that seawalls and floodgates will deliver us completely from these risks.  And a sense that we can simply adapt our way out of this problem.

Umm… no.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that we can build an impregnable fortress against incoming climate threats. Sea level rise estimates along the East Coast are very, very sobering and show that the seas are rising much faster here than the global average. In fact, according to a recent paper by USGS scientists, sea level rise on the East coast could be 8 to 11 inches more than the global average sea level rise of up to 3.3 feet by 2100.

Smart climate choices

The extent of projected sea level rise means we will eventually have to make some hard decisions about whether it may make more sense to relocate people and places further inland, rather than trying to fight a losing battle to keep the water out. We have to invest in preparedness and public health measures that will help people cope with the aftermath of megastorms like Sandy and other extreme weather.

Globally, the situation is even more dire: Residents of many low-lying island nations and populous coastal areas in places like India and Bangladesh face a real prospect of becoming climate refugees by mid-century.

We have to also simultaneously invest in solutions that will dramatically lower our global warming emissions. As Scott Mandia has demonstrated using sea level rise estimates from Climate Central, every inch of sea level rise we can prevent matters since even small increases in sea level have an outsize effect on the destructiveness of storm surges.

And we have to make robust investments in the science and the tools (e.g. satellites, weather, and climate data) that will help give us advance warning of the risks we face. NOAA, our chief source of this information, is right now also providing critical data to help recovery and damage assessment efforts related to Sandy.

The true test of our resolve in the face of climate change

Spc. Anthony Monte along with soldiers from the 50th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, New Jersey Army National Guard, mobilized for Hurricane Sandy to provide assistance to displaced residents at an emergency shelter at the Werblin Recreation Center, Piscataway Township, N.J., Oct. 29, 2012. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Mark C. Olsen)

We’re still in the emergency phase of responding to Sandy. People without homes may need to be relocated in the face of cold weather. Restoration of power and cleanup operations are still ongoing. People are still contacting their insurers and FEMA in the hope that their claims will be honored in a timely way.

But what comes next will be the true test of our country’s willingness to face up to the challenge of climate change. Will we continue to deny the science? Or accept magic bullet solutions? Or will we marshal our resources to develop comprehensive climate action plans that bolster the long-term resilience of our communities and our economy?

We, and our children, urgently need a response to climate change that is rooted in science and reality.

Feature image: Courtesy of The National Guard