Insurance industry is leaving home and business owners (and cities) in the dust by pulling out of high-storm areas.

A new report by nonprofit environmental coalition Ceres says the insurance industry is shunning Florida markets because of increased storm activity, while insurers have done little to prepare for climate change.

The Ceres report is littered with references to insurers applying special conditions to Florida. Excerpts from the report:

• Several insurers describe screening out securities or real assets from coastal regions (particularly Florida) and arid regions with perceived water scarcity such as the Southwest. Particularly following the spate of destructive storm and drought activity in 2012, these investment screening practices should be noted by real asset owners and bond issuers.

• Already, divestiture from coastal counties and municipalities is a reality. This ranges from simple embargos like that adopted by Hudson Insurance Company (“We have determined not to buy State of Florida bonds,”) to more general policies.

• Torchmark Group said in its survey response, “In response to the potential for major catastrophe losses, the companies have not purchased investments such as Florida Windstorm bonds, Oil Casualty bonds, etc. We continuously monitor conditions in all sectors that are, or could be, affected by future climate developments.”

Reblogging to show a common problem with enviro-reporting.

environmentalillnessnetwork:

An un-redacted version of a recently released Nuclear Regulatory Commission report highlights the threat that flooding poses to nuclear power plants located near large dams — and suggests that the NRC has misled the public for years about the severity of the threat, according to engineers and nuclear safety advocates…

The NRC report identifies flood threats from upstream dams at nearly three dozen other nuclear facilities in the United States, including the Fort Calhoun Station in Nebraska, the Prairie Island facility in Minnesota and the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, among others. More at HuffPo

Important discovery, but the reporting seems over the top. Comparing the threat, for example, of a fresh-water river flood to a salt-water tsunami from the ocean is plainly disingenuous and frankly journalistically lazy.

I get that nuclear power plants are vulnerable to environmental change and climate impacts. Indeed, I have written about the threats several times, but this story smells of fear-mongering.

It’s an interesting article, no doubt. It shows that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published two different reports, one of which was published publicly.

But discovering that there are two (or more) versions of a report is certainly not proof of a “cover-up.” Writing different versions of the same report is standard operating procedure to my mind.

The NRC has historically been blunt about environmental threats to nuclear power plants - indeed, that’s a primary objective of the commission. One would need crystal clear evidence to successfully accuse such a high-level, highly-scrutinized organization.

Besides, the very flood vulnerabilities discussed in both versions of the report are in fact being mitigated. So, what exactly is the problem here?

Finally, as is common with environmental reporting, the piece does not provide a plan of action to resolve the issue. It doesn’t say that the commission should be disbanded and replaced, nor show that the work being done to mitigate floods are flawed. The article subsumes the public will act, which is plainly disproportionate to the accusation at hand.

Thoughts?

Here on my climate adaptation tumblr, I try (my best) to post about environmental issues that are roughly related to the impacts from shifts in the climate. Sea-level rise is the most obvious impact. Melting glaciers and Arctic ice are raising the levels of the ocean. And cities around the world are scrambling to deal with the impacts, which are mind-blowingly huge, incredibly expensive, and often politically vexing. 

I have masters degrees in environmental law and city planning. The focus of my research was/is how land-use laws were able (or, rather, unable) to accommodate climate science. So, naturally, I’m interested in how climate will affect infrastructure, economies, demographics, ecosystems, etc.

For example, I’m quite interested how can coastal communities deal with a rising sea. Especially big cities like New York City or San Fransisco, which have thousands of buildings, roads, ports, and pipelines literally built inches from the ocean.

Cities are prepared for certain levels of disasters. There are sea walls and evacuation plans, flood pump stations and hurricane barriers. And buildings and infrastructure are generally built to high standards. But, cites are not prepared for higher oceans (why would they be?). Climate change changes the equations and calculations of managing disasters in cities. They’re forced to adapt, regardless of how many solar panels are slapped onto rooftops.

It’s a complicated issue. Greenhouse gasses trap in more heat in the atmosphere, causing a bunch of crazy environmental things to happen. So the obvious response is to stop pumping carbon into the air. That’s Al Gore’s primary message.

The problem with this is that storms and fires and diseases are increasing as a result from rising temperatures. Climate change is occurring regardless of mitigation. Thus, the impacts have to be dealt with. In fact, our troubles are only going to increase. I choose to be on the impacts side of this conundrum (eg, adaptation).

So, what’s my deal with oil leaks and spills? The short answer is that oil and gas infrastructure, such as pipelines and oil rigs, are very vulnerable to climate impacts. Oil - like it or not - makes the world go round. It’s in nearly everything we use - from plastics to medicine to soap. There is no stopping oil.

I wrote about this last year for GOOD Magazine. IBM and a climate consulting firm called Acclimatise did a study on the oil and gas industry’s vulnerability to climate change. I showed that oil pipelines in Alaska are more likely to break and leak oil than ever before, and that the oil industry is way under-prepared to deal with these new types of leaks:

In one of most ironic flip-flops in environmental history, the oil and gas industry is beginning to adapt to climate change. And it’s no wonder. The majority of industry’s infrastructure is located in some of the most climate vulnerable regions on the planet. Nearly 75 percent of the Alaskan pipeline, for example, is built over increasingly unstable permafrost, which is now thawing under warmer temperatures. The Mackenzie Valley in Canada alone has recorded over 2,000 sink holes, rock slides, and large depressions from thawing permafrost.

The pipeline’s famous elevated design was the result of a 20 year study (PDF) on the stability of climate and permafrost from 1950 to 1970. Based on the historic record, engineers designed the supports for the pipeline to withstand some fluctuation in permafrost, but not for the extensive melts now predicted. Indeed, that 20 year study was the one of the coldest periods in Alaskan history. Whoops.

The study I referred to, Global Oil & Gas - The Adaptation Challenge, showed that infrastructure was dangerously unprepared for climate impacts. Thousands of miles of oil pipelines are perched on permafrost in Canada, Russia, and Alaska.

Permafrost is permanently frozen soil - essentially the land is mixture of ice, rocks, and soil. Permafrost does move around a bit and any infrastructure built on it is (usually) engineered to handle a certain level of flex (the EPA has a decent primer on permafrost).

But, when the ice melts in substantial volumes, the soil shrinks and contracts. As a result, anything built on permafrost is in big trouble. Oil and gas pipelines could rupture, causing tremendous environmental damage, as well as incredible costs to economies in terms of clean up costs (who pays?), damage to fisheries and tourism, and lowered property values (and tax revenues). Not to mention health troubles for workers and residents.

So, that’s pretty much why I post so much on oil - infrastructure vulnerability. Oil spills are nasty, nasty creatures. Their economic and environmental impacts are super gnarly to deal with. And they’re expected, as IBM showed, to increase unless the infrastructure adapts to the “new normal”.

Follow | Donate | Learn | Ask

Strong (indeed, fundamental) and tight article on climate vulnerability by Laurie Goering, one of the best climate journos in the world. In her piece posted on Reuters AlterNet, Goering discusses the difficult the problem of measuring vulnerability to climate change in a way that can be useful for decision makers.

Which countries are going to suffer most from climate change? It’s a hard question to answer, as any U.N. climate negotiator can tell you.

But there’s now an excellent guide that suggests some answers. The Washington-based Global Adaptation Institute has released its annual look at climate vulnerability - a data-rich trove of interactive maps, statistical charts, rankings and other information on which countries are most naturally vulnerable, which suffer governance and other relevant problems, and which are making progress preparing for climate change.

The “readiness matrix”, for instance, suggests that Zimbabwe, Myanmar and Eritrea are the nations least prepared to deal with climate change, while Burundi and Central African Republic are the most intrinsically climate-vulnerable countries.

Read the rest at AlterNet

“The World Health Organization estimates that of the nearly 150,000 people already perishing around the world each year because of climate change, nearly 90% are children. And the threats for children, and thus for women, are continuing to mount. More frequent and longer droughts will lead to food shortages for millions, and particularly those in poverty. Similarly, extreme storms and rising sea levels threaten drinking water supplies for millions worldwide. For women, this means traveling further and working even harder to provide for the basic needs of their families and communities.

These climate-related pressures aren’t unique to poor women living in developing countries. Here in the United States, the same social dynamics apply and women are overwhelmingly responsible for caregiving. Here, too, the changing climate is a growing liability to our families’ health.

For example..”

Read the rest at Green Fudge

This may be the most important advancement in climate adaptation in U.S. history. Military bases, power plants, turtle nesting grounds, etc., are being affected by rising seas. Whenever there is a new project that will affect these areas, developers have to ensure that the environment is not significantly harmed (this is why the right hates the EPA).

They have to file what’s called an Environmental Impact Statement, aka an EIS. Want to build a new road? File an EIS to show the public if any animal habitat will be disturbed or if human health will be impacted from pollution. Want to build an oil pipeline from Alberta Canada to Texas? File an EIS and post it online for the public to review it.

Build a new high-speed train? File an EIS. Dump mercury pollution into the Great Lakes? EIS. New coal mine? EIS. Fix an old bridge? EIS. Cut down a forest? EIS. There are federal EISs and state EISs (and sometimes there are local EISs, which makes the process to build something very expensive, but they’re all relatively good for the environment.) 

The Federal Highway Administration builds and maintains our nation’s highway system. It has to file boat loads of EISs every year. It characterizes an EIS as a federal regulation required by the National Environmental Protection Act, which was signed by Nixon around 1970:

NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS is a full disclosure document that details the process through which a transportation project was developed, includes consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives, analyzes the potential impacts resulting from the alternatives, and demonstrates compliance with other applicable environmental laws and executive orders. The EIS process in completed in the following ordered steps: Notice of Intent (NOI), draft EIS, final EIS, and record of decision (ROD).

The NOI is published in the Federal Register by the lead Federal agency and signals the initiation of the process. Scoping, an open process involving the public and other Federal, state and local, agencies, commences immediately to identify the major and important issues for consideration during the study. Public involvement and agency coordination continues throughout the entire process. The draft EIS provides a detailed description of the proposal, the purpose and need, reasonable alternatives, the affected environment, and presents analysis of the anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the alternatives. Following a formal comment period and receipt of comments from the public and other agencies, the FEIS will be developed and issued. The FEIS will address the comments on the draft and identify, based on analysis and comments, the “preferred alternative”. Read more here.

Writing for Columbia Law School’s Climate Law Blog, sharp student Patrick Woolsey found that the U.S. Military and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are at the forefront of filing EISs that include sea level rise impacts from climate change. In a recent post, Woolsey wrote: 

The U.S. military addresses sea level rise in its EISs for coastal bases and installations with particular urgency. In a 2010 EIS, the Navy analyzes the effects of SLR on the expansion of a naval base on the island of Guam and the construction of a deepwater docking facility for aircraft carriers. The Guam EIS recognizes the island’s extreme vulnerability to climate change and SLR. The EIS also discusses SLR in the context of broader security concerns, noting that “in 2008, the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.”

It’s not just the military who is concerned with rising seas - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission filed EISs for new reactors on the coasts; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration filed EISs for fishery management, coral reefs, and sea turtle habitat; and the Navy is concerned with expanding an island military base in Guam.

EISs are made up of many parts, but the do not have to include sea-level rise. And they certainly do not require developers to include climate change impacts! Politically, climate change is a toxic issue. But, the agencies are showing that they do have the individual power and mandate under the NEPA to manage environmental impacts regardless of the source. 

I have no doubt this turn towards adapting projects for climate impacts will hit the Supreme Court within the next few years.

” According to a UNICEF report, Children’s Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Disaster Impacts in East Asia and the Pacific(PDF), children will be among those most affected by climate change. Millions of children across East Asia and the Pacific already suffer from a lack of access to clean water and proper sanitation, and are vulnerable to food shocks and risks of disease. Climate change is expected to worsen this situation.

The leading killers of children worldwide are highly sensitive to climate change. UNICEF Pacific Representative, Dr. Isiye Ndombi said “higher temperatures have been linked to increased rates of malnutrition, cholera, diarrhoeal disease and vector-borne diseases like dengue and malaria, while children’s underdeveloped immune systems put them at far greater risk of contracting these diseases and succumbing to their complications.”

The UNICEF report released today presents an analysis of the climate change trends and potential impacts on children in East Asia and the Pacific, drawing on findings from five UNICEF-commissioned country studies in Indonesia, Kiribati, Mongolia, the Philippines and Vanuatu, as well as children’s own perspectives on climate change and other research. This research was supported by Reed Elsevier, which works in partnership with the global science and health communities to publish more than 2,000 journals, including The Lancet and New Scientist.

“The findings in this report remind us of the connection between climate change and the other challenges confronting children,” said Anupama Rao Singh, UNICEF Regional Director for East Asia and the Pacific. “They also remind us that children’s experiences, and the risks they face in terms of their health, education and development, are unique.” “

Source: Voxy

I’m working with Missy Stults, Climate Director for ICLEI, on adaptation assessment at the Federal level. Below, she is interviewed in at the Bonn Resilient Cities Conference, which her organization sponsored. GO MISSY! 

Interviews from ICLEI’s Resilient Cities 2011 Congress are now online on the www.climate-change.tv website.

ICLEI’s President, Steve Cadman, discusses what resilience is. From the Oceania branch Steve Gawler gives a concise overview of the Rockefeller-funded ACCCRN (Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network) and their ten champion cities. From ICLEI USA, Missy Stults reports on the US and vulnerability assessments. US EPA’s Anthony Socci goes further into adaptation measures there, focusing on the tribal perspective.

World Bank Special Envoy for Climate Change, Andrew Steer introduces their report on cities in North Africa and the role of cities in the negotiations. In a separate video, he shares his thoughts on what will make Durban a success.

UNISDR’s Helena Molin discusses their monitoring tools and disaster preparedness. From the UNHABITAT, Joan Clos emphasises the urgency cities are under and contemplates financing.

Mayors and representatives from US North Little Rock, Mexico City (Marcel Ebrard and  Martha Delgado),  Dar es Salaam, Brazil’s Belo Horizonte (in Portuguese and English), The Philippines’ Quezon, Vancouver and Jerusalem, discuss impacts of and adaptation to climate change.