Future flooding likely to surge beyond coastal communities

If your house sits along a coastline, you know you are in harm’s way and that, thanks to climate change, the odds against your home’s survival are growing by the day.

But if your property is inland, don’t think you’re entitled to be smug. As The New York Times’ Brad Plumer reported recently, a study published July 30 found that as oceans rise, powerful coastal storms, crashing waves and extreme high tides will be able to reach farther inland, putting tens of millions more people and trillions of dollars in assets worldwide at risk of periodic flooding.

If the world’s nations keep emitting greenhouse gases, and sea levels rise just 1 to 2 more feet, the amount of coastal land at risk of flooding would increase by roughly one-third, the research said. In 2050, up to 204 million people currently living along the coasts would face flooding risks. 

“Even though average sea levels rise relatively slowly, we found that these other flooding risks like high tides, storm surge and breaking waves will become much more frequent and more intense,” said Ebru Kirezci, a doctoral candidate at the University of Melbourne in Australia and lead author of the study. “Those are important to consider.”

USA Today’s Doyle Rice wrote: “Floods that occur once every 100 years could now occur once every 10 years in 2100, the research showed, mainly as a result of sea-level rise.” The study was published in the journal Scientific Reports.

Areas at highest risk, CNBC reported, include southeast China, Australia’s Northern Territory, Bangladesh, West Bengal, Gujurat in India, and the U.K. In our country, the threat is particularly acute for North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.

This flooding could cause serious economic damage, Plumer wrote. The study found that people currently living in areas at risk from a 3-foot rise in sea levels owned $14 trillion in assets in 2011, an amount equal to 20 percent of global G.D.P. that year.

There are already signs that periodic flooding is wreaking havoc along coastlines. A July analysis from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found that high-tide flooding in cities along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast has increased fivefold since 2000, a shift that is damaging homes, imperiling drinking-water supplies and inundating roads.

Plumer pointed out that the new study’s authors acknowledge that theirs is a highly imperfect estimate of the potential costs of sea-level rise. For one, they don’t factor in the likelihood that communities will take action to protect themselves, such as elevating their homes, building sea walls or retreating inland. Nor did they account for any valuable infrastructure, such as roads or factories, that is at risk. A fuller economic accounting would require further research, Kireczi said.

The research is the latest evidence that forceful national action by our federal government makes economic sense. The likely losses are staggering. Most economists say that a tax on carbon emissions is the fastest, most efficient, and least expensive way to slow climate change. Please join us in urging Congress to take such action.

Two-thirds of Americans Want the Federal Government to Do More on Climate

Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the federal government should do more to combat climate change, and almost as many say the problem is already affecting their community in some way, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center.

In addition, the nationwide survey of 11,000 adults conducted from April 29 to May 5 found that 60 percent of Americans consider climate change a “major” threat — up from 44 percent about a decade ago, said Alec Tyson, the Pew Research Center’s associate director for science and society. Pew obtained the views of 11,000 adults between April 29 and May 5.

As The Washington Post’s Brady Dennis reported, the wide difference between the views of Republicans and Democrats remains: “88 percent of Democrats describe climate change as a grave threat, while only 31 percent of Republicans feel the same.”

Dennis wrote that the  mounting desire for the federal government to do more “comes, perhaps not surprisingly, as its effects touch more lives in the United States. Seven in 10 Americans who live within 25 miles of a coastline say that climate change is already affecting their community. But even among those who live 300 miles or more from the reach of rising seas, 57 percent of respondents say they have witnessed at least some impacts.”

Opinions about the local impact of climate change vary sharply by party. A large majority of Democrats (83%) say climate change is affecting their local community a great deal or some. That compares to just 37 percent for Republicans. Most Republicans (62%) say climate change is affecting their community not too much or at all.

What action should the federal government take? Should corporations pay a tax based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce? Yes, said 73 percent.

The survey also found that 79 percent of Americans say the more important priority for the country is to develop alternative sources, such as wind and solar; far fewer (20%) say the more important energy priority is to expand the production of oil, coal and natural gas. 

On balance, most U.S. adults see a role for government in shifting energy use toward renewables. Almost 60 percent say that government regulations are necessary to encourage businesses and consumers to rely more on renewable energy. Fewer (39%) think the private marketplace will encourage the use of renewable energy, without the need for government intervention.

Consistent with past Pew Research Center surveys, younger Republicans place a higher priority on alternative energy development – and are less supportive of expanding fossil fuel sources – than older Republicans.

The government action that was supported by the largest percentage of respondents (90%) was planting a trillion trees to absorb carbon dioxide. The Trump administration also supports that initiative, championed by the World Economic Forum. 

In addition, 84 percent of U.S. adults support enactment of a business tax credit for carbon capture technology that can store carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere. Democrats (90%) and Republicans (78%) back this proposal, which House Republicans rolled out earlier this year.

Pew offered respondents two other options for government action, and both earned majority support. Most Americans favor tougher restrictions on power plant emissions (80%) and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks (71%). 

Americans Worrying More about Climate Change's Impact on Health

Will heat stroke caused by extreme heat waves become more common in your community because of climate change? A newly released survey found that 57 percent of Americans think so, up from 37 percent just six years ago.  

That was one of a number of problems and risks that respondents believe will be on the rise over the next 10 years if nothing is done to address global warming. The rate of increase was eye-opening, strongly suggesting that Americans not only acknowledge that our climate is changing but realize that our health will suffer as a result.

Another: Bodily harm from wildfires, including damage caused by smoke inhalation, up from 26 to 54 percent.

A third concern: Bodily harm from severe storms and/or hurricanes, up from 34 to 57 percent.

The study was conducted by Yale and George Mason University researchers who study public opinion on climate, working with the pollster Ipsos. They compared the results of a survey taken in April with the results of one undertaken back in October 2014. More than 1,000 people took part, and the margin of error is plus-or-minus 3 percent.

Other findings included:

Asthma and/or other lung diseases: Up from 37 to 54 percent.

Diseases caused by insects: Up from 33 to 54 percent.

Bodily harm from flooding: Up from 27 to 52 percent.

Illness caused by food/water containing bacteria/viruses: Up from 32 to 51 percent.

Pollen-related allergies: Up from 38 to 51 percent.

Severe anxiety: Up from 27 to 44 percent.

It’s little wonder that our fellow citizens are increasingly concerned. The World Health Organization believes that the changing climate’s wide-ranging impacts contribute to at least 150,000 deaths around the globe every year. Climate change, WHO fears, could “undermine decades of progress in global health.”

In the United States, heat caused at least 10,000 deaths between 1999 and 2016. As of June 20, the mercury in Phoenix had soared above 100 degrees on 16 days, hitting 112 degrees on June 4. Yearly heat-related deaths have more than doubled in Arizona in the last decade, reaching 283. 

A new review of 68 studies has found that pregnant women exposed to air pollution and high temperatures are more likely to give birth to preterm, stillborn or underweight children. The review, published in JAMA Network Open and summarized by The Hill’s Abigail MiHaly, examined more than 32 million births and found an association between climate change effects such as heat, ozone and fine particulate matter, and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Researchers also found that minority women, particularly black mothers, were affected the most.

Another recent report on climate change and human health was issued by Columbia Journalism Investigations and the Center for Public Integrity and co-published in partnership with The Guardian. It observed: “In contrast to a viral pandemic, like the one caused by the novel coronavirus, this is a quiet, insidious threat with no end point.” 

Many states, cities, and businesses are taking steps to counter climate change. The federal government, however, is lagging. Congress needs to take this problem seriously, and one important part of the solution is an honest price on carbon emissions. That is the fastest, cheapest, and most efficient way to combat climate change.  Please urge your senators and representative to support such action.

Could Hurricane Season Lead to "Disaster Fatigue?"

Life is difficult enough these days due to covid-19. Now those who live in the Atlantic basin are facing a double whammy: a hurricane season that not only started early--for the sixth straight year--but one that is likely to be worse than normal. 

The combination could be called cruel and unusual punishment for the tens of millions of Americans who live near the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico.

The New York Times’ Henry Fountain summarized a recent study by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Wisconsin. “Hurricanes have become stronger worldwide during the past four decades, an analysis of observational data shows, supporting what theory and computer models have long suggested: climate change is making these storms more intense and destructive.

“The analysis... shows that warming has increased the likelihood of a hurricane developing into a major one of Category 3 or higher, with sustained winds greater than 110 miles an hour, by about 8 percent a decade, Fountain wrote.” The study was published May 18 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Physics suggests that as the world warms, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones should get stronger, because warmer water provides more of the energy that fuels these storms. Scientists point out, though, that there are other factors at play, as well.

“We’ve just increased our confidence of our understanding of the link between hurricane intensity and climate change,” said James Kossin, the lead author of the new study. “We have a significantly building body of evidence that these storms have already changed in very substantial ways, and all of them are dangerous,” he said.

Gabriel Vecchi, a hurricane expert at Princeton University who was not involved in the new research, told The Washington Post that the study shows an uptick from 30 percent of storms being major to about 40 percent of storms being major. He termed that “a pretty large increase.”

NOAA researchers are putting the odds of an above-normal hurricane season at 60 percent. They forecast that the Atlantic basin could see 13 to19 named storms, six to 10 hurricanes and three to six major hurricanes. The average hurricane season includes 12 named tropical storms, six hurricanes and three major hurricanes.

The Atlantic hurricane season officially begins June 1 and runs through November. This year the first named tropical storm, Hurricane Arthur, arrived in mid-May. It hit North Carolina’s Outer Banks before veering out to sea, having done relatively little damage.

After two months of a pandemic, Fox News reported, some emergency officials worry that people living in hurricane-prone areas could face “disaster fatigue.”

“We have disaster fatigue, they’re tired of seeing the numbers, they’re tired of seeing the news. … They’re tired,” Bill Wheeler, Houston’s deputy emergency management coordinator, told Accuweather.

This year’s hurricane season is all the more dangerous because of the pandemic, which makes some of the core practices of emergency management, like group shelters, far more difficult,” noted Carlos J. Castillo, acting deputy administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in a call to journalists May 21.

Meantime, some Americans who live hundreds of miles from the Atlantic have their own problems. Floodwaters from heavy rains caused the collapse of a dam upstream from Midland, Michigan, May 20, forcing the evacuation of about 40,000 people. The floodwaters mixed with containment ponds at a Dow Chemical Company plant and could displace sediment from a downstream Superfund site, though the company said there was no risk to people or the environment.

The changing climate has put more of the nation’s 91,500 dams at risk of failing, engineers and dam safety experts told The New York Times. “We should expect more of these down the road,” said Amir AghaKouchak, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California, Irvine. “It’s unfortunate but this is what the trend is going to be.” The American Society of Civil Engineers, in its latest report card on infrastructure in 2017, gave the nation’s dams a “D” grade.

In the West, there’s another problem worsened by climate change. “Expanding and intensifying drought in Northern California portends an early start to the wildfire season,” Paul Duginski wrote in The Los Angeles Times, “and the National Interagency Fire Center is predicting above-normal potential for large wildfires by midsummer.”

 All these challenges across our nation drive home, yet again, the need for national action to counter climate change. Congress should reduce the number-one cause of climate change--carbon dioxide emissions--by putting an honest price on carbon.

SOLAR & WIND NOW CHEAPEST NEW POWER SOURCES IN MOST OF WORLD

New wind, solar and battery projects are getting so inexpensive that they rival the cost of building new gas or coal power plants in most of the world, according to an April 28 report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

A solar or wind farm is now the cheapest kind of new power plant for two-thirds of the world’s population, according to BNEF. Those areas represent up 71 percent of gross domestic product and 85 percent of energy generation.

The cost of electricity around the globe has dropped by 9 percent for onshore wind and by 4 percent for utility-scale solar since the second half of 2019 — “a startlingly fast change for power plants that don't rely on traditional fuels,” as David Ferris put it in his EnergyWire story on the report.

The projects’ costs are declining as they get larger, achieving a scale that makes every part less expensive. In the last four years, the average size of a wind farm has more than doubled, from 32 megawatts to 73 MW, while solar farms have become a third larger.

The drop in the cost of renewables is certain to continue. "There are plenty of innovations in the pipeline that will drive down costs further," said Tifenn Brandily, a lead author of the report.

BNEF’s analysis measured the all-in costs of creating power, which means "development, construction and equipment, financing, feedstock, operation and maintenance."

Experts point out, however, that the pandemic could help coal and natural gas survive a bit longer than they would otherwise, mainly because the decline in electricity demand has driven down the prices of those two fossil fuels. "If sustained, this could help shield fossil fuel generation for a while from the cost onslaught from renewables," said Seb Henbest, chief economist at BNEF.

The coronavirus crisis is partly to blame for slowdowns in major U.S. offshore wind projects, Newsday’s Mark Harrington reported. Denmark-based Ørsted, the largest developer of offshore wind for the United States, said in late April that it expects delays on five major East Coast projects, citing impacts from the coronavirus pandemic and "prolonged" federal permitting.

In addition, the far-better-established onshore wind sector has some 25 gigawatts of planned projects at risk, or $35 billion worth of investment, according to an analysis by the American Wind Energy Association.

The Financial Times reported that the wind industry’s supply chain woes are putting “as much as 30 gigawatts of new capacity at risk in the US, China and Europe this year alone."

The good news for the U.S. wind industry is that during the year’s first quarter a record amount of capacity, about 24,690 MW, was under construction, as EnergyWire’s David Iaconangelo reported. Corporations and utilities contracted for a record volume of wind power via power purchase agreements. And the first 4-MW turbines went into service, marking the rise of a new crop of machines with unprecedented capacity factors.

As the world’s economies are drawing up rescue packages to staunch the damage caused by the pandemic, the UN, the International Energy Agency (IEA), EU officials and others are calling for seizing the opportunity to boost clean energy, Ben Geman noted in his Axios newsletter “Generate.” IEA said the world needed a wave of investment to restart the economy with “cleaner and more resilient energy infrastructure.”

Reinforcing that notion, a report by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a climate finance think tank, found that developers risked wasting more than $600 billion if all mooted coal-fired plants were built. The Guardian’s Adam Morton quoted report co-author Matt Gray, who said that proposed coal investments risked becoming stranded assets that locked in increasingly expensive power for decades. “The market is driving the low-carbon energy transition but governments aren’t listening,” Gray said. “It makes economic sense for governments to cancel new coal projects immediately and progressively phase out existing plants.”

To accelerate the transition to renewable energy, Congress should put an honest price on carbon emissions. Models indicate that even a modest price of $25/metric ton of CO2 would trigger a significant shift toward renewable energy.