Lessons Learned in the Wake of Sandy: Saving Transit Means Taking the High Ground--Literally

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

As the six month anniversary of Hurricane Sandy rolls by, the passage of time is giving us a clearer picture of what preventive measures really worked. Thanks to an excellent series running this week on WNYC, we can see that New York did a good job of protecting its trains and subways cars while New Jersey didn't.

The stories, part of WNYC's Life After Sandy series, detail among other things how New Jersey used incorrect data and maps to determine a safe place to store it's trains during the coming storm.

As WNYC's Kate Hinds and Andrea Bernstein note:

If officials had entered the right numbers, they would have predicted what actually happened: a storm surge that engulfed hundreds of rail cars, some of them brand new, costing over $120 million in damage and thrusting the system's passengers into months of frustrating delays.

But the fate of NJ Transit's trains - over a quarter of the agency's fleet - didn't just hang on one set of wrong inputs. It followed years of missed warnings, failures to plan, and lack of coordination under Governor Chris Christie, who has expressed ambivalence about preparing for climate change while repeatedly warning New Jerseyans not to underestimate the dangers of severe storms.

The reporters found a tale of two agencies: one in New York that planned well in advance for extreme weather events, and on in New Jersey that didn't.

The stories are part of a lengthy investigation in partnership with The Record newspaper (Bergen, NJ), and New Jersey Public Radio. Reporters looked at hours of testimony by the (greater New York) Metropolitan Transit Authority and NJ Transit officials, as well as hundreds of pages of internal documents. They also interviewed transit officials and climate and weather experts.

When reporters for WNYC and The Record asked NJ Transit officials for their official extreme weather planning documents, they both received the same thing-a three page memo. That memo appeared to be the extent of NJ Transit's plan, and all but the first page had been blacked out.

NJ Transit's basic response was that the yard where their trains were stored had never flooded before, and that no one could have predicted the severity of Sandy. That's not sitting too well with New Jersey Transit riders who endured months of delays in the wake of the storm, and have seen little evidence of a more enlightened approach to extreme weather preparedness.

New York's MTA, on the other hand, developed detailed plans to prepare for an extreme flooding and storm surges. The plans involved moving trains to higher ground, and pulling electrical signals from tunnels prone to flooding. Thanks to such measures, the MTA was able to get its systems up and running soon after the storm, and only 19 of its 8,000 rail cars were flooded.

Back in 2008, the agency prepared a forward-looking report and plan: MTA Adaptations to Climate Change--A Categorical Imperative. Among the actions recommended in the plan:

Identify MTA facilities and programs subject to climate risk; Identify main climate change impacts to MTA facilities and programs; Apply future climate change scenarios by time slice; Develop implementation plans, including timeframes for implementation; Monitor and reassess adaptation strategies according to unfolding of climate change and developments in climate science...

You get the point. The MTA's assessment was part of the PlaNYC which represents probably the single best climate preparedness initiative in the United States. Post-Sandy MTA and New York officials are looking to future impacts and how best to prepare for them.

New Jersey, and other states and cities, should take note.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/tspencer/lessons_learned_in_the_wake

Hiding the Impacts of Climate Change in South Carolina

Ben Chou, Water Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

As a near native of the Palmetto State, I often find myself reminiscing about the many years I lived there. From my childhood in Mauldin (near Greenville), to high school in Hartsville (near Florence), undergrad in Columbia (Go Gamecocks!), and a few months post-college in Charleston, I have lived in many areas of the state. I even return a few times a year to visit my in-laws in Myrtle Beach.

• Sunset on Hilton Head Island (photo by Lee Edwin Coursey)

One of my favorite things about the state is a slogan that used to grace the license plate: Smiling Faces. Beautiful Places. I think it nicely sums up the warm and friendly disposition of the people and amazing natural beauty found in South Carolina. Unfortunately, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has kept under wraps a report that spells trouble for the state's beautiful places and could turn those smiles into frowns.

The DNR completed a climate change vulnerability assessment a few years ago but decided against releasing it for public review. The report was leaked to a major state newspaper and then published on their website. It seems like a waste of taxpayer money for a public agency to invest so much time and many resources into developing a study only to leave it collecting dust on a shelf somewhere, especially when it comes to an incredibly important topic that will impact all South Carolinians-climate change.

According to the report, there have been several observed changes in the state's climate and across the Southeast region:

• Since 1970, a general warming trend has been observed in the state's three major geographic divisions.
• Water temperatures in Charleston Harbor have shown a steady warming trend since 1985.
• Across the Southeast, there have been observed increases in heavy downpours in many areas even though moderate to severe drought conditions also were widespread.

Over the next 70 years, average temperatures are projected to rise 4.5°F to 9°F depending on future greenhouse gas emissions. And as if summers were not already hot enough (and extremely humid might I add), the greatest temperature increases are projected to occur during the summer months. By the 2080s, summers are projected to be about 11°F hotter. Just imagine summer highs well into the triple digits being the norm instead of the exception. Drought conditions also are expected to become longer, more frequent, and more intense as temperatures and rates of evapotranspiration rise.

The report only focuses on direct impacts to natural resources, which also will affect natural resource-dependent industries like tourism and recreational fishing and hunting-tourism alone contributes approximately $17 billion annually to the state economy. There are also untold impacts to people, homes, businesses, communities, and the economy that are not included in this assessment.

These are a few of the likely consequences of climate change for natural resources in the state from the report:

• Rising sea levels will impact beaches, wetlands, and other coastal habitat, threatening sea turtles, birds, and commercially-important fisheries like shrimp and blue crab.
• Increasing salinity in river systems due to sea level rise will force freshwater and diadromous fish (fish that spend portions of their life cycles in freshwater and saltwater) to move upstream, where possible, to find better habitat.
• Warmer water temperatures could cause a shift in the distribution of anadromous species (fish that live in saltwater but return to freshwater to spawn) like striped bass and sturgeon and cause coldwater fishes like brook trout and smallmouth bass to become locally extinct.

While this report is a critical first step towards planning for climate change impacts, the state still has much work to do. Given that the places and wildlife that people love so much are at great risk, the DNR should formally release this report for public review. The state also should take immediate steps to examine what the likely impacts of climate change are for other sector areas as part of the development of a statewide climate preparedness plan. Approximately 20 percent of states in the U.S. have developed such a plan. The state can and should join these ranks to preserve its beautiful places and keep the smiles on the faces of future generations of South Carolinians.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bchou/hiding_the_impacts_of_climate.

You Don't Have to Take Our Word For it: Americans Want Action on Climate Change

Pete Altman, Climate and Clean Air Campaign Director, Washington, D.C.

For years now, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental/health groups have known that Americans want tough action to curb carbon pollution, based on a long record of polls. Just last week, we released another poll showing just that, measuring reaction to President Obama's State of the Union speech.

Among other things, our latest survey found: "Sixty-five percent of Americans think that climate change is a serious problem and a substantial majority support Presidents Obama using his authority to reduce its main cause, dangerous carbon pollution."

Of course, it's easy to dismiss any poll as being "self-serving" in some way. And some people are very quick to make that kind of objection - since it's much easier than explaining away the actual findings.

That's why we were so interested to see the results out today from the Pew Center for the People and the Press. There's a big write-up on the survey in USA Today that explains the Pew poll's findings on what Americans think about key issues such as the budget deficit, gun policies, immigration ... and climate change.

Americans Support Action this Year

Here are the key Pew poll findings on climate:

• Fully 62% favor setting stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change while 28% oppose this, and nearly half (46%) of those who support emissions limits say that new climate policies are essential this year.

• 73% say action on climate is essential this year or in the next few years; 34% say essential this year.

Young Adults and Independents Care About Climate

The Pew poll examined support for climate action by age group, and found something that should make our nation's political parties perk up and pay attention:

Young Americans between 18 and 29 are the most supportive of climate action: fully 70% of them support cleaning up power plants.

Nearly as many independents - 64% - favor stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change, while only 26% oppose such limits - a margin of more than two-to-one in support of carbon limits on power plants. Consistent with what we've seen before, republicans are divided, with 42% favoring stricter emission standards while 48% are opposed.

On Climate, Advantage Obama

The Pew survey is also notable because it thoroughly debunks the notion that climate is a "loser" issue in terms of politics.

In fact, President Obama's strongest political advantage over republicans is on climate change. Asked whether Obama or Congressional Republicans have the best approach on climate, nearly half of Americans said Obama while just over a quarter said republicans. The gap - 21 points in Obama's favor - is the largest margin out of the issues examined.

So, there you have it. The highly respected independent research team at Pew is finding what NRDC has been finding: Americans want action on climate change and they want to tackle the nation's biggest source of carbon pollution, our nation's power plants.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/you_dont_have_to_take_our_wo

President Obama Vows Action on Climate; Latino Groups Support Swift Action

Adrianna Quintero, Senior Attorney, Director, La Onda Verde de NRDC, San Francisco

In his second inaugural speech yesterday, President Obama presented his vision for the future of our country, calling on us to seize the moment and highlighting the strength of our country's diversity. For Latinos across the nation there was much to cheer for, and much to hope for.

Answering the concerns of so many families, the President affirmed his commitment to ease the path to citizenship for immigrants, improve outdated education programs, and create greater equality in our workforce. And in a bold pledge to protect the health of our families and communities, President Obama declared that his administration would work to address climate change--a commitment strongly supported by Latinos nationwide.

With communities still recovering from the flooding and devastation left by Hurricane Sandy, the President's call for action to curb climate change could not come soon enough. 2012 saw thousands of records broken in the U.S. for heat, rain, and snow across the country, with American families suffering the consequences. From devastating droughts in the Midwest that ruined crops and the livelihoods of American farmers, to violent storms that left thousands without power or water along the East Coast, 2012 proved to be a shockingly dangerous--and deadly--year of extreme weather events.

Ready or not, our climate is changing, and we're witnessing the consequences in our backyard. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 2012 was the hottest year ever recorded in the continental United States. A warmer climate fuels more heat waves, downpours, floods, fires, and other extreme weather events--just what we've seen across the country over the past few years.

The President got it right when he stated that we will all be affected by a changing climate. As the President stated, "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."

We can't afford to wait any longer. That's why leading Latino groups, along with small business owners and environmental organizations, are urging President Obama to act quickly to address the growing climate threat. In a new letter to the President, Voces Verdes, the National Hispanic Medical Association, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and over a dozen other leading Latino organizations, called on President Obama to curb harmful carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants.

The President has already acted to reduce pollution from new power plants. But we can't stop there. Coal-fired power plants are the nation's largest source of global warming pollution. Implementing new standards for existing power plants will put us on a path toward climate stability, unleash investment in new clean energy technologies, and help stem the devastating storms, droughts, and floods worsened by climate change. And, even while Congress remains gridlocked, the President can act now to implement these new standards, using the authority already given to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean up our air.

For Latino communities, action on climate change now means a healthier and more prosperous future for our children. Half of all U.S. Latinos live in places where air pollution often makes the air unsafe to breathe. Cutting pollution from existing power plants will not only clean up the air in communities near the plants, but will also help reduce the health impacts of climate change--like increased asthma attacks that come with warmer air. And with unemployment still hovering around 10% for Latinos, jobs in areas like construction, home weatherization, solar panel installation, and energy efficiency retrofits, will help get our workers back on their feet.

President Obama faces a long, difficult road in his second term, but his commitment to confront climate change could be a defining part of his legacy. The President has the opportunity now to drive global action on climate change, showing that we are committed to creating a healthier environment for all.

As President Obama outlined in his inaugural address, "America cannot resist this transition. We must lead it." Mr. President, the Latino community, and Americans across the nation, stand ready to support your actions to respond to the threat of climate change and protect our children and future generations.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aquintero/president_obama_vows_actio

Time to Dump Dirty Diesels Worldwide

Peter Lehner, Executive Director, New York City

When I took over the environmental prosecution unit of the New York City Law Department in 1990, I conducted an informal survey of everyone I knew, asking: What's the worst environmental problem in New York City? By a big margin, people said it was the black smoke coming out of trucks and buses, emitted from a tailpipe at the same level as kids' heads.

Today, few people would even mention it. Real change happened here, and relatively quickly. Ducking to avoid a smelly cloud of toxic, cancer-causing diesel exhaust is a reflex that New Yorkers need rarely call upon, thanks to clean air laws and strict emission standards on diesel. When the last of the dirty diesels are phased out across the country, around 2030, we'll be saving about 26,000 lives each year.

Diesel pollution from buses in Jakarta (courtesy Asian Development Bank via Flickr)

In the developing world, however, diesel is still a killer. (Diesel emissions certainly played a role in China's recent off-the-charts smog.) Dirty diesel engines, along with power plants and traditional cookstoves, are major generators of particulate matter--more commonly referred to as soot--which is responsible for 3.2 million premature deaths each year, worldwide.

Diesel engines are also a major contributor to climate change. At the heart of every diesel soot particle lies a light-absorbing, heat-emitting core of what's called black carbon. According to a major new study published last week, black carbon is the second largest human-made contributor to global warming. It has twice the global warming impact previously thought. And diesel engines are responsible for 20 to 25 percent of the world's black carbon emissions.

So diesel exhaust is not only a deadly public health risk, but a powerful agent of global warming as well. Yet we know from experience that we can slash diesel pollution, quickly and effectively.

In the United States, programs to clean up diesel have been remarkably effective. When New York City got rid of its dirty diesel buses (in response to a campaign spearheaded by NRDC), particulate emissions from the fleet dropped 97 percent. Black carbon emissions were likely cut by a similar amount through that effort. In California, total black carbon emissions have fallen nearly 50 percent in the past 25 years, largely due to strict diesel emission standards.

New diesel engines in this country are now 90 to 95 percent cleaner than engines that were sold just a few years ago, thanks to a national low-sulfur fuel standard and emissions standards that have made new filter technologies standard equipment on all new trucks and buses. America's clean diesel programs are expected to prevent 26,000 premature deaths every year.

Similar programs around the world have the potential to save millions of lives--and can also help put the brakes on global warming in the short term. Unlike carbon dioxide, black carbon is a short-lived climate pollutant. It takes effect quickly, and wears off quickly. When we pump less of it into the atmosphere, the benefits are almost immediate.

Diesel vehicles in developing nations burn high-sulfur fuel and lack even the most basic emissions controls, exposing people to nearly 100 times as much toxic pollution, while also generating tons of global warming pollution. Because diesel pollution occurs in densely populated areas, right at breathing level, it has an outsized impact on human health, making diesel a critical target in the fight for clean air. And because diesel exhaust produces black carbon, which has now been confirmed as a major global warming pollutant, it's also a critical target in the fight to curb climate change.

NRDC, a founder of the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles, has been working on cleaning up diesel pollution throughout the developing world.

Through the partnership, countries around the world have started working toward creating a standard for ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. This fuel is already available in some major world cities, including Delhi, Hong Kong, Mexico City, and Beijing, but its use is not widespread, and certainly not standard.

The partnership's previous success in eliminating lead from gasoline worldwide-a move that is expected to generate $2.4 trillion in health, social, and economic benefits--lends hope that it could achieve similar success with diesel. Cleaning up diesel worldwide would prevent millions of premature deaths from cancer, heart attacks, and lung disease. It would also help to quickly reduce global warming pollution. Along with our efforts to counter the long-term, potent effects of carbon dioxide, it makes eminent sense to tackle short-acting pollutants like black carbon as well. Dumping dirty diesel is an excellent way to start.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/time_to_dump_dirty_diesels_w

Maryland is Taking Action to Prepare for Rising Seas

Ben Chou, Water Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

As Hurricane Sandy vividly demonstrated in late October, coastal communities across the U.S. are increasingly vulnerable to flooding and storm surge as sea levels rise. Storm surge from more extreme storms on top of higher sea levels increases coastal flooding by allowing floodwaters to move further inland, putting people, homes, and businesses in harm's way.

Given Maryland's thousands of miles of shoreline, coastal hazards are an ever-present threat. The state's coastal zone includes the 16 counties that border the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay, and Potomac River-an area encompassing two-thirds of the state's total land, which contains nearly 70 percent of all residents. Since the early 1900s, relative sea levels along Maryland's coast have risen over one foot, placing 13 islands in Chesapeake Bay underwater. And approximately 580 acres of coastal land are lost to erosion every year.

• Abandoned home on Holland Island in 2009, which has since collapsed into the sea (photo credit: flickr user baldeaglebluff)

Rising seas due to warmer, expanding oceans and melting ice will only exacerbate existing coastal hazards, further jeopardizing communities in coastal areas. Relative sea levels are projected to rise by approximately one foot by mid-century and about three feet by the end of the century-though these projections were developed in 2008 and more recent data on rates of future sea level rise are now available. In fact, a 2012 study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that rates of sea level rise along the mid-Atlantic coast (from Cape Hatteras to Boston) are three to four times greater than the global average primarily due to the weakening of ocean currents. Warmer water temperatures and melting glaciers are decreasing the density of water in the northern Atlantic, which is subsequently affecting ocean circulation patterns.

According to our recent report, Maryland has been among the leading states in the country when it comes to preparing for climate change impacts. And the state is not idly standing by. Last week Governor Martin O'Malley signed the Climate Change and Coast Smart Construction Executive Order, which will help to reduce flooding risks to state buildings and public infrastructure in coastal areas. The order directs:

• State agencies to consider coastal flooding and sea level rise risks in the siting, design, and construction of new state buildings and the reconstruction of substantially damaged state buildings;
• The Department of General Services to update its engineering and design guidelines to require state agencies to elevate new and rebuilt state structures two or more feet above the 100-year flood level;
• The Department of Natural Resources to develop recommendations for siting and design requirements for coastal state infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and water systems and non-state infrastructure that receive public funds;
• The Scientific and Technical Working Group of the state's climate change commission to update statewide sea level rise projections based on the latest climate science.

These are critical first steps that every coastal state should be taking to prepare communities for more extreme storms and higher seas. By not factoring climate change into fundamental land use and structural design decisions, states are turning a blind eye to a problem that will only get worse. It's time for other governors across the country to stop ignoring the problem and, like Governor O'Malley, start implementing solutions.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bchou/maryland_is_taking_action_to_p