Skip to content Skip to site navigation

James West and Kate Sheppard's Posts

Comments

FEMA report: Climate change could increase areas at risk of flood by 45 percent

Damaged homes along New Jersey shore after Hurricane Sandy.
Greg Thompson / USFWS
Damaged homes along New Jersey shore after Hurricane Sandy.

Rising seas and increasingly severe weather are expected to increase the areas of the United States at risk of floods by up to 45 percent by 2100, according to a first-of-its-kind report released by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Wednesday [PDF]. These changes could double the number of flood-prone properties covered by the National Flood Insurance Program and drastically increase the costs of floods, the report finds.

The report concludes that climate change is likely to expand vastly the size and costs of the 45-year-old government flood insurance program. Like previous government reports, it anticipates that sea levels will rise an average of four feet [PDF] by the end of the century. But this is what's new: The portion of the U.S. at risk for flooding, including coastal regions and areas along rivers, will grow between 40 and 45 percent by the end of the century. That shift will hammer the flood insurance program. Premiums paid into the program totaled $3.2 billion in 2009, but that figure could grow to $5.4 billion by 2040 and up to $11.2 billion by the year 2100, the report found. The 257-page study has been in the works for nearly five years and was finally released by FEMA after multiple inquiries from Climate Desk and Mother Jones.

The report attributes only 30 percent of the increased risk of flooding to population growth; 70 percent is due to climate change. FEMA designates what are known as special flood hazard areas, where there is a 1 percent risk in any given year of a major flood occurring. (They're also known as 100-year floodplains.) If you have a federally backed mortgage on your home and it's in a special flood hazard area, you are required by law to carry flood insurance. As of 2013, the NFIP insures 5.6 million properties. But that number could double by 2100, to as many as 11.2 million, the report found.

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

She’s got the Power: What does Obama’s U.N. ambassador pick think about climate?

Samantha Power speaking in Geneva in 2009.
U.S. Mission Geneva / Eric Bridiers
Samantha Power speaking in Geneva in 2009.

Samantha Power, Obama's U.N. ambassador-in-waiting, frowned modestly as the president heaped lofty praise on her this week when he announced a major national security reshuffle.

"One of our foremost thinkers on foreign policy, she showed us that the international community has a moral responsibility and a profound interest in resolving conflicts and defending human dignity," he said. "I think she won the Pulitzer Prize at the age of 15 or 16," he joked. (Power won in 2003, in her early 30s, for A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, a rationale for American intervention in international atrocities.)

In accepting the president's nomination -- the Senate still needs to approve -- Power argued for a strong American role in the U.N.: "As the most powerful and inspiring country on this Earth, we have a critical role to play in insisting that the institution meet the necessities of our time. It can do so only with American leadership."

But will Power's brand of leadership extend to advocating climate action from her powerful position at the U.N.? After all, climate change is a top priority in the U.N.: While development has been grinding, members at the Doha climate conference last December reaffirmed a previous decision to reach a global pact to replace Kyoto by 2015; Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself has listed climate change at the very top of his 2013 to-do list (up there with stopping the bloodshed in Syria). By contrast, there's very little evidence that climate change has motivated Power's career or featured in her public comments, leaving foreign policy experts confused as to how she might rise to the challenge. The people in the know ... don't know.

"I don't think she has ever illustrated particular views one way or another on the environment," said former colleague Professor Robert Stavins, an expert on environmental economics at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

"I don't think we have any information," said Joshua W. Busby, at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. On climate change, "I didn't find anything she's ever said."

What clues we do have lie in her critique of the United Nations.

Comments

How to fix the climate, in one simple flowchart

After we published our How to win a climate argument flowchart, we thought, "Wouldn't it be great if all the climate solutions were boiled down into a simple, step-by-step flowchart?" As President Obama gets down to business in his second term, we look at what's next for his administration as well as where your own individual choices fit into the big picture. Choose your own climate solution adventure (and click to embiggen):

Comments

Feeding the trolls: Meeting with a climate denier, face to face

If you disagree with me, you are a total fucking idiot!
Shutterstock

If you've ever read anything on the internet, chances are you've encountered a troll. No, not the kind that live under bridges, or the ones with a shock of neon hair. We’re talking about those annoying commenters who get their kicks by riling people up as much as possible. But have you ever wondered who these people really are? Well, we found out.

Internet researchers at George Mason University recently found that when it comes to online commenting, throwing bombs gets more attention than being nice, and makes readers double down on their preexisting beliefs. What’s more, trolls create a false sense that a topic is more controversial than it really is. Witness the overwhelming consensus on climate change amongst scientists -- 97 percent agreement that global warming is real, and caused by humans. But that doesn't settle the question for Twitter addict and Climate Desk perennial thorn-in-the-side Hoyt Connell.

"If you allow somebody to make a comment and there's no response, then they're controlling the definition of the statement," Hoyt says. "Then it can become a truth."

We first encountered Hoyt, or as we know him, @hoytc55, several months ago on our Twitter page, taking us to task for our climate coverage. And the screed hasn’t stopped since: In April alone, Hoyt mentioned us on Twitter some 126 times, almost as much as our top nine other followers combined. So we did the only thing we knew how to do: Track him down, meet him face to face … and ask a few questions of our own. Here's episode one of our three-part series, Trollus Maximus:

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

We just passed the climate’s ‘grim milestone’

The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where NOAA watched the carbon record break.
NOAA
The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, where NOAA watched the carbon record break.

Over the last couple weeks, scientists and environmentalists have been keeping a particularly close eye on the Hawaii-based monitoring station that tracks how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, as the count tiptoed closer to a record-smashing 400 parts per million. Thursday, we finally got there: The daily mean concentration was higher than at any time in human history, NOAA reported.

Don't worry: The earth is not about to go up in a ball of flame. The 400 ppm mark is only a milestone, 50 ppm over what legendary NASA scientist James Hansen has since 1988 called the safe zone for avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, and yet only halfway to what the IPCC predicts we'll reach by the end of the century.

"Somehow in the last 50 ppm we melted the Arctic," said environmentalist and founder of activist group 350.org Bill McKibben, who called today's news a "grim but predictable milestone" and has long used the symbolic number as a rallying call for climate action. "We'll see what happens in the next 50."

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

How Thatcher made the conservative case for climate action

Thatcher at the U.N. in 1990.
United Nations
Thatcher at the U.N. in 1990.

The year: 1990. The venue: Palais des Nations, Geneva. The star: Margaret Thatcher, conservative icon in the final month of her prime ministership. The topic: global warming.

Thatcher went to the Second World Climate Conference to heap praise on the then-infant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and to sound, again, the alarm over global warming. Not only that, her speech laid out a simple conservative argument for taking environmental action: "It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now," she said, "than to wait and find we have to pay much more later." Global warming was, she argued, "real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."

The Iron Lady's speech makes for fascinating reading in the context of 2013's climate acrimony, drenched as it is in party politics. In the speech, she questioned the very meaning of human progress: Booming industrial advances since the Age of Enlightenment could no longer be sustained in the context of environmental damage. We must, she argued, redress the imbalance with nature wrought by development.

"Remember our duty to nature before it is too late," she warned. "That duty is constant. It is never completed. It lives on as we breathe."

On climate change, Margaret Thatcher, who died on Monday at age 87, was characteristically steadfast, eloquent, and divisive. "The right always forget this part of her legacy," Lord Deben, a member of the House of Lords and chair of the U.K.'s independent Committee on Climate Change, told Climate Desk on Monday. Lord Deben served in the Thatcher government and said she was crucial in raising the profile of climate negotiations around the world, even when it was deeply unpopular amongst her colleagues. "She was determined to take this high-profile position," he said. "She believed it was her duty as a scientist." (Thatcher studied science while at Oxford University.) Barring a few members, "the rest of the cabinet were not convinced," he said.

Comments

Withering drought still plaguing half of America

Click to embiggen.
Click to embiggen.

The $50 billion drought that bedeviled the country last summer -- the worst since the Dust Bowl of the 1930′s -- still has its fingers around half the country. And if predictions are to be believed, it’s only going to get worse for many in the coming months.

Weekly drought figures released Thursday by the U.S. Drought Monitor, a joint project of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the USDA, and several other government and academic partners, show the situation has worsened slightly from last week, with nearly 52 percent of the continental U.S. now suffering from a moderate drought or worse. Below-average winter snow pack and rainfall are keeping much of the country in a holding pattern. No measurable precipitation fell on most of central and northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin, central and northern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and the Louisiana Bayou last week. Rain that fell in the West did nothing to alleviate the drought there; in fact, parts of western Oregon and southwestern Washington have reported their driest start to a calendar year on record. The forecast for the next two weeks? Dry and dry again.

Read more: Climate & Energy

Comments

How much is a beachfront home in the Sandy-ravaged Rockaways?

257 Beach 140th Street, a modest four-bedroom house blocks from the beach in the Rockaways, Queens, is fairly unremarkable, but it put up a hell of a fight during Hurricane Sandy. While other houses just down the street were being ripped off their foundations, 257, which had been up for sale since before the storm, suffered only a little flooding in the basement. It’s otherwise unscathed, but even that damage was enough to knock a solid 10 percent off its list price (down to $799,000 from $890,000), enough to make first-time homebuyers Matthew and Jenny Daly take a closer look.

“There are more opportunities because of everything that’s happened in the last six months,” Matthew says.

In New York City alone, Sandy racked up $3.1 billion worth of damage to homes. Many of those properties in hard-hit areas like the Rockaways and the south shore of Staten Island are still empty, awaiting repairs, government buyouts, resident squatters, or, like in the case of 257, a new owner ready to tackle a fixer-upper. Damaged homes are now on the market for as much as 60 percent off their pre-storm value, and local realtors say there’s a ready contingent of bargain-hunters waiting to pounce -- sometimes, to the detriment of sellers.

Comments

Can we 3D print our way out of climate change?

Tech optimists' crush of the decade is surely 3D printing. It has been heralded as disruptivedemocratizing, and revolutionary for its non-discriminatory ability to make almost anything: dressesguns, even houses. The process -- also known as "additive manufacturing" -- is still expensive and slow, confined to boutique objets d'art or lab-driven medical prototyping. But scaled up, and put in the hands of ordinary consumers via plummeting prices, 3D printing has the potential to slash energy and material costs. Climate Desk asks: Can 3D printing be deployed in the ongoing battle against climate change?

This story was produced as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Comments

This cheat sheet will make you win every climate argument

"I don't see what all those environmentalists are worried about," sneers your great uncle Joe. "Carbon dioxide is harmless, and great for plants!"

OK. Take a deep breath. If you're not careful, comments like this can result in dinner-table screaming matches. Luckily, we have a secret weapon: A flowchart that will help you calmly slay even the most outlandish and annoying of climate-denying arguments:

Read more: Climate & Energy