Switchboard, from NRDC › Theo Spencer's Blog

Climate Change is Impacting Winter Sports

2012-02-06T14:39:06Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

So far, it hasn’t been a great winter for skiers, snowboarders, snowmobilers and folks who depend on a lot of snow for their recreation and livelihood. Some states—Washington and Alaska—and some ski areas like Taos in New Mexico, and Telluride in southern Colorado, have gotten dumped on. But most resorts across the country are hurting for snow and hurting for dollars as a result. (See my colleague Kelly Henderson’s recent blog post on this topic).

Some people have been arguing that this is just a normal fluctuation that comes with El Nino and La Nina weather patterns as well as the position of the jet stream, and that a warming climate has nothing to do with it. You can see evidence of this in the comments in response to Kelly’s blog.

Those weather patterns certainly do effect seasonal precipitation. But what we’re seeing this winter is part of a trend which is the result of more than just the current La Nina weather pattern. It is also the result of a buildup of heat-trapping carbon pollution in the atmosphere. As the US Global Climate Change Research Program states, “Snowpack has reduced over the last 50 years, due to temperature.” See their very helpful map of the trend in decreasing snowfall near bottom of page 42.

NASA scientist James Hansen shows in a recent paper that heat-trapping pollution has loaded the climate dice. Not only are severe heat waves becoming much more likely, but the warmer atmosphere holds more water. In the summer that means heavier down pours when it rains and more extreme droughts when it doesn’t. In winter it means that a larger share of precipitation comes as rain rather than snow, but when it does snow we can expect bigger blizzards. California skiers know how frustrating this can be. Last year big blizzards often made it impossible to get to the slopes, and this year has been patchy at best.

Negative human impact on the climate and winter recreation hasn't been lost on people like professional snowboarders and skiers. Protect our Winters (POW) was founded by one of the pioneering and most celebrated boarders, Jeremy Jones, after Jones noticed that so many of the places he was riding all over the world had less and less snow as the years have gone by. Jones and fellow advocates Grethen Bleiler (an Olympic silver medalist), and extreme skiing champion Chris Davenport, have taken their argument to Washington, lobbying members of Congress to pass legislation to cut carbon pollution. Big retailers like The North Face, Patagonia, Vans and O'Neill are behind POW--these companies make a lot of money selling winter gear. Less snow and shorter winters mean lower sales.

Other internationally known winter sports athletes, including two time Olympic gold medalist Seth Wescott, are also getting involved in helping boost support for cutting heat-trapping pollution

In a related development, as the Washington Post reported recently, the Department of Agriculture released a new plant hardiness zone map that shows generally warmer low temperatures for winter than the department’s previous map from 1990. The zones cover all 50 states and Puerto Rico and were drawn from the average winter low temperatures between 1976 and 2005 at 8,000 weather stations. The Agriculture Department did say, though, that the new map is not specifically a tool to measure climate change and that many of the boundary shifts are the product of better and more complete data and sophisticated computer algorithms.

As to the trend of overall human-induced warming temperatures, check out the recent New York Times article reporting on a new striking video NASA produced showing how temperatures around the globe have risen since 1880.

While weather does fluctuate year by year, and El Nino/La Nina do have an impact, the long-term trend is less snow and earlier snowmelt. This means more frustration for snow sport enthusiasts and a negative impact on the snow sports industry just as we are seeing in so many parts of the country this winter.

UN Report: More "Extreme" Bad Weather Coming,' What We Can Do

2011-11-18T22:33:09Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

More extreme weather events—heat waves, floods, drought—are coming our way this century, and there is new evidence that links these extreme events to climate change, according to a report issued today by the world’s most respected scientific body on climate change.

The Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation was released by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It says, as our colleagues at the World Resources Institute succinctly point out:

Extreme weather is on the rise around the world
Extreme weather and climate disasters are deadly and expensive, and losses are increasing
A warming world will likely be a more extreme world
Greenhouse gas pollution is likely driving some of these trends
Adaptation and disaster risk management can enhance resilience in a changing climate; differences in vulnerability and exposure must be considered in the design of such initiatives

The much anticipated study states starkly that extreme weather will increase risks to human health and livelihoods, as well as infrastructure (fact sheet here). It also lays out the economic damage that has been caused and will be caused by extreme events, including the costs of lives lost. The report is a table-table setter for the annual climate talks later this month in Durban, South Africa, where delegates from nearly 200 countries will try once again to find ways to limit the carbon emissions that cause climate change, and help countries deal with the impacts of a warming world.

Our President, Frances Beinecke, blogged on the report earlier today, as did my colleague Kim Knowlton. If you want to depress yourself more, you can read this very nice Union of Concerned Scientists summary of extreme weather events over the past year. There are also some excellent regional fact sheets on extreme weather impacts in the U.S-- Northeast, Southeast, Midwest and Southwest--prepared by Climate Central

New polling by Yale University researchers shows Americans already understands that global warming makes extreme weather more severe.

That’s kind of good news. There also some kind of good news in the IPCC report: as the world faces the ‘new normal’ of more extreme weather events, policymakers and businesses are starting to adjust. And the report details measures that can be taken to manage risks associated with extreme events, like spreading risk through insurance policies, and taking “low regret” steps such as restoring ecosystems.

Now let’s get more specific. We released our Rooftops to Rivers report on Wednesday, which details how cities of all sizes are saving money by employing green infrastructure as part of their solutions to stormwater pollution and sewage overflow problems, resulting from increased heavy rains. Those heavy rains run off paved surfaces and roofs and overwhelm sewage and storm-water systems, causing threats to drinking water and our health, while also fouling our beaches and degrading ecosystems.

Green infrastructure solutions have the added benefits of beautifying neighborhoods, cooling and cleansing the air, reducing asthma and heat-related illnesses, lowering heating and cooling energy costs, boosting economies, and supporting American jobs. Cities like New York and Philadelphia are taking the lead on this path. In our In our recent Thirsty for Answers report we outline what 14 cities around the US are doing to prepare for climate impacts—mostly related to increased precipitation.

States are acting too. Over 12 states have preparedness plans, or are in the process of adopting them. Numerous tool kits are available for cities and states looking to implement these plans. Among the leading states are California and New York. New York this week released a comprehensive look at climate impacts, and responses to those impacts.

But as the new IPCC report makes clear, we all need to do much, much more.

Health Costs from Extreme Weather Events $14 Billion, We're Workin' On It

2011-11-08T15:18:56Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Economists at the Universities of California at Berkeley and San Francisco, along with our team here at NRDC, released findings in a study Published in the journal Health Affairs today.

The economists and scientists investigated the health costs of six climate change-related events, and found the estimated costs totaled more than $14 billion (in 2008 U.S. dollars), and generated and over 760,000 interactions with the health care system. The study team selected six types of events that will worsen with climate change in ways likely to harm human health -- ozone smog pollution, heat waves, hurricanes, mosquito-borne infectious disease, river flooding, and wildfires. The health effects and related costs of these events offer an indication of the threats we will increasingly face under a warming climate.

There’s a good Reuters story on the study here.

NRDC Scientist and Lead Author Kim Knowlton said:

When extreme weather hits, we hear about the property damage and insurance costs. The healthcare costs never end up on the tab. But that doesn’t mean they’re not there. Right now, there’s a gaping hole in our understanding of the health-related costs of climate change. This report begins the work to fill that void. Only by having a clear sense of health impacts and their costs, can we work to reduce them.

You can read Kim’s blog on the study here. She points out in her blog:

NRDC’s “Climate Change Threatens Health” webpages (at www.nrdc.org/climatemaps) map five major climate-health vulnerabilities across the US, so you can see how climate change affects health right in your backyard. The webpages also tell you what (if anything) is being done to prepare and adapt to climate change where you live, and actions you can take to protect your and your family’s health.

Climate change endangers human health, and costs us money in both lost and interrupted lives and increased health care.

More information is included on the NRDC webpage, including access to the full text of the Health Affairs paper, an NRDC factsheet with a US map showing the 6 climate change-related event sites, and a description of the study methods.

The study is the first to develop a uniform method of quantifying the associated health costs for extreme weather and disease events that are expected to be exacerbated by climate change. The analysis spotlights cases in six specific categories in the U.S. occurring during 2002 through 2009, including: Florida hurricanes, North Dakota floods, California heat waves and wild fires, nationwide ozone air pollution, and Louisiana West Nile virus outbreaks.

This group of events resulted in an estimated 1,689 premature deaths, 8,992 hospitalizations, 21,113 emergency room visits, and 734,398 outpatient visits, totaling over 760,000 encounters with the health care system. Such extreme climate-change related events and their impacts are projected to increase in severity and frequency as climate change continues to go unchecked.

Only 13 U.S. states currently include public health measures in their climate change adaptation plans. With a better understanding of the economic impacts and health risks, as offered by the study, government agencies and key players can create effective partnerships for climate-health preparedness that aggressively limit and reduce public health damage. Investments in climate change mitigation at the local, state and national levels, married with analyses of the climate change health costs to inform this strategic planning, will save billions of dollars in health costs and save lives.

I blogged on this year’s record 14 extreme weather events costing over $1 billion each recently. I noted in that blog:

Recent influential reports have made the direct link between the rise in extreme weather events and rising carbon pollution. More extreme weather events are becoming the norm, they’re costing companies money, and they’re putting electricity supplies at risk.

The good news is that people are taking action to do address these climate impacts, they’re getting prepared and cities are at the forefront, as our Thirsty for Answers report points out. In my blog mentioned above, I also cite several other Preparedness examples, here, here and here.

Finally, as Kim notes in her blog:

Proactive public health solutions to climate disasters need to be systematized now to reduce inevitable climate change-related peril. We hope the Health Affairs report provides the methodology that will allow our leaders to begin to do just that.

Call It 'The New Abnormal,' And Then Start Doing Something About It

2011-11-04T17:46:12Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Recent influential reports have made the direct link between the rise in extreme weather events and rising carbon pollution. More extreme weather events are becoming the norm, they’re costing companies money, and they’re putting electricity supplies at risk.

Plus people are getting pissed off.

Just ask Michael Frohne. As The New York Times reported on Wednesday:

First came the heavy snow in February that crushed the hangar and destroyed the vintage Piper J-5A airplane he housed in Dutchess County, N.Y. Then came the tornado in June that ripped out an ancient oak tree in his backyard in Roxbury, Conn. When Tropical Storm Irene blew through in August, another huge oak fell — this time on his house, blasting a hole through a back bedroom. In each case, electricity was lost.

So for Michael Frohne, a home improvement contractor and musician, his sinking sense of familiarity was understandable when the October northeaster, which he calls the Halloween hell storm, hit.

Once again, Mr. Frohne,”…“was left with enormous tree damage and without power…”

“I don’t want to do this anymore,” Mr. Frohne, 63, said. “I’m going to Costa Rica in January, and I don’t know if I’m ever coming back.”

Frohne was one of the three million people in the Northeast who lost power during last week’s massive freak snowstorm. Hundreds of thousands are still without heat or lights. The Halloween snowstorm in the NE brought the number of $1 billion weather disasters in a year to a record 14.

In Texas, the worst one-year drought on record is causing drinking water quality concerns as lakes and rivers shrink. Reuters reported, in a story titled “No One Drinks the Tap Water, Which is Unbearably Briny as the Lake Dries Up,” that residents of the East Texas town of Robert Lee are fed up—the lake that supplies their water is 99 percent dry.

"It tastes ugly and it stinks," said Delfino Navarro, a mechanic and handyman at a local car dealership, who stood on his browning front lawn on a recent afternoon with a bottle of water in hand. "You can't drink that water or you'll get sick."

Half of all of the rivers in Texas are flowing at 10 percent or below normal flow, according to a story Tuesday in The Texas Tribune:

The worsening water quality could also become a concern for high-tech manufacturers in Central Texas, given their need for huge amounts of very pure water for memory chips.

“Obviously, the higher the water quality, the better it is for us,” said Catherine Morse, a spokeswoman for Samsung Austin Semiconductor.

In a great, great story on NBC Nightly News about new studies definitively linking extreme weather to climate change, Texas State Climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon said of the drought:

This is really the first time when the impacts of climate change has manifested itself in a tangible way within the state of Texas.

The folks at Samsung in Texas aren’t alone among businesses in their concern about climate and water. A survey by the Carbon Disclosure Project of 150 of the world’s largest companies found that 40% of respondents had experienced water problems that resulted in “detrimental impacts” to their businesses

The Carbon Disclosure Project on Tuesday announced it started adding questions about climate and water use and risks to a survey it sends to 140 cities around the world about their greenhouse gas emissions

"Cities are immensely vulnerable to the damaging effects of climate change, and water is the sharp end of the climate change stick," said Conor Riffle, head of CDP Cities, in a statement. "Measuring and reporting information on carbon, climate change and water brings cities greater insight, enables them to make powerful decisions and ultimately address the risk as well as capitalize on the many opportunities to bolster future sustainable growth."

In the Midwest, a report released Tuesday by the Great Lakes Commission, found that a quarter of the watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin may be vulnerable to water consumption by (mostly coal-fired, carbon emitting) power plants during dry periods that are expected to become more frequent because of climate change. That’s if these power plants continue to operate in a “business as usual” fashion. The Great Lakes Commission is made up of the eight Great Lake states, plus Ontario and Quebec.

A report released Thursday by the Pacific Institute says that climate change could exacerbate conflicts in the Interior West between the production of electricity--from fuel extraction to power generation--and water availability and quality. Coal-fired power plants in particular consume huge amounts of water.

But here’s where we shift to the good news. Both the Great Lakes Commission report and the Pacific Institute report say that moving away from burning fossil fuels for power to sources like renewable energy and energy efficiency will greatly reduce impacts on water supplies.

Companies are taking action too. For example, a front page story in Wednesday’s New York Times featured the efforts of jeans maker Levi Strauss to reduce water. According to the story, “a typical pair of blue jeans consumes 919 gallons of water during its life, cycle.” That’s enough to fill 15 spa-sized bath tubs.

The company wants to reduce that number any way it can, and not just to project environmental responsibility. It fears that water shortages caused by climate change may jeopardize the company’s very existence in the coming decades by making cotton too expensive or scarce.

Floods in Pakistan and China recently destroyed cotton crops and sent the price of cotton soaring. So “to protect its bottom line,” the Times reports, Levi’s has started funding water-saving programs for its cotton growers in India, Pakistan, Brazil and Africa, including the sue of drip irrigation and rainwater capture.

A three-year independent study of Indian farms found those adopting the new techniques reduced water and pesticide use by an average of 32 percent, the initiative says. The profit was 20 percent higher than that of a control group using traditional methods.

The company also started making stone-washed jeans with a process that actually uses rocks rather than water to make the jeans look worn in. Levi’s says that jeans marketed as less water-intensive have sold better than regular jeans, the Times reports.

The story goes on to add how other massive companies are taking climate-related water threats seriously, including Pepsico , which is sanitizing bottles with purified air instead of water, and providing farmers with drought-resistant potato strains and water-efficient soil monitoring methods to make products for Pepsico’s Frito-Lay division.

Cities and states are taking action as well. Our Thirsty for Answers report looks at what 12 cities around the US are doing to prepare for the impacts of climate change, many of which are water-related.

California, which published its first adaptation strategy in 2009, has developed a web tool called Cal-Adapt to help local decision makers. At least nine states have completed adaptation plans, and many more are in the process of completing them.

A study released last month by the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University gives a good overview of these plans, and policies to address drought, health, heat wave and intense storm impacts. NRDC also has an excellent website that addresses preparedness issues related to climate and health.

And Georgetown University yesterday launched a "toolkit" and website, three years in the making, with specifics about state and local policies to address everything from rising sea levels to the urban heat island effect.

It looks like we're dealing with a new abnormal, thanks to climate change and the increase of extreme weather events. But we can do something about it. Many cities and states already are, but a lot more needs to be done.

Climate Science Skeptic Finds Globe is Warming

2011-10-25T20:04:31Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Climate change skeptics and deniers often point to alleged flaws in temperature monitoring data, and analysis of that data, to bolster their arguments. But a new study by a team at the University of California--called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project--should put those arguments to rest.

The study, released on Thursday, stated that “global warming is real” and that the world’s average land temperature has risen by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the mid-1950s. It has received broad media attention because of one of its lead authors, physicist and UC Berkeley Professor Richard Muller, has the reputation of being a skeptic about some aspects of climate science. He helped initiate the analysis to see if the claims about flawed temperature data were correct.

Muller said in an Op-Ed published in the Wall Street Journal Europe (not published in the US print edition):

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

The new analysis shows that at least one skeptic can be persuaded by data. It’s a different story for deniers (more on that in a bit). First a little more on the Berkeley study, which set out to take a new look at supposed discrepancies and quality problems in data and data analysis from the network of temperature monitoring stations.

The Economist explains in a story titled “The Heat is On: A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming---

There are three compilations of mean global temperatures, each one based on readings from thousands of thermometers, kept in weather stations and aboard ships, going back over 150 years. Two are American, provided by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one is a collaboration between Britain’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (known as Hadley CRU). And all suggest a similar pattern of warming: amounting to about 0.9°C over land in the past half century.

Some climate deniers have argued that the findings of these prestigious scientific bodies are flawed because the placement of temperature measuring stations—and the data from them—were suspect. Muller and his team set out to check them, using what they said was a new method.

In the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Muller explains:

Our work covers only land temperature—not the oceans—but that's where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.

We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

You can more read more about the study and its implications in Forbes, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Discover Magazine, in Andy Revkin’s New York Times blog, or Joe Romm’s blog at Climate Progress

Now back to the deniers. It will be interesting to see what impact the new study will have on the larger climate denier community. Denying that our climate is changing, and changing because of man-made emissions, has isolated the US from Europe and influential—and heavily greenhouse gas emitting—countries like China and India. The United States is the "one significant outlier" on responding to climate change, according to a recent global research report produced by HSBC, the London-based bank.

Let’s hope that work like that of Muller and his team at Berkeley help to change some important minds and in doing so help turn our ship of state back to the mainstream.

GOP Governors, Bi-Partisan Congressmen: Flood Cost Killing Us, Can We Get a Plan?

2011-10-19T20:03:51Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Midwestern governors most of them Republicans, are mad as hell and they don’t want to take it anymore. Costs associated with record flooding, they say, and a lack of preparedness for such extreme events are devastating their states.

The governors have been on the war-path in the last week, testifying before Congress and sending a letter to lawmakers grilling the government and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Of course there have been the requisite debates about climate change—most of the governors still won’t accept the science—but all agree that more preparedness measures need to be taken so the past does not become prologue. In fact, the need to prepare for (more and more frequent) extreme weather events seems to be an issue both parties can agree on. In a recent report we put out, Thirsty For Answers, we document steps cities are already taken to prepare for the increase in extreme weather events attributed to climate change.

The GOP governors of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska North Dakota and South Dakota, in the letter sent to Congress this week, questioned whether the Army Corps of Engineers followed protocol in dealing with the catastrophic floods along the Missouri river this summer that caused over $1 billion in damage to levees and crops, and calling for an independent Congressional review of the federal government’s handling of the disasters.

"It's not going to take much to put us into a similar position next year," said Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) at a press conference in Omaha.

Heineman and his colleagues are worried that their states may not recover before additional rain hits this winter and spring. Army Corps of Engineers boss Gen. John McHahon responded that Congress needs to cough up more money to help the Corps control flooding and prevent future levee breakthroughs, USA Today reported. McMahon said the full flood prevention system along the Missouri will be “very vulnerable” come flood season in the spring as repairs won’t be made by then.

"It's going to be a dicey year," McMahon said.

Additionally, eight senators and Reps from the Dakotas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska joined the fray yesterday in a hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, a turnout out Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called “unprecedented.” The senators and congressmen blamed the Corps for moving too slowly to fix river management policies they said exacerbating flood damage. The lawmakers said the Corps has also moved too slowly to rebuild flood-damaged levees in the shadow of the coming wet season, according to a story in E&E Daily (subscription required). All states represented were hit hard by massive floods on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers over the last year.

Floods along the Missouri River doubled historic flows as a result of rainfall 200 to 400 percent above normal throughout the region. According to the story, South Dakota Republican Senator John Thune said at the hearing:

"I fear that the corps is planning to move forward under the assumption that this was a one-off event."

The bad news here is Thune is right, the federal government is unprepared, even after President Obama called for federal agencies to prepare climate adaptation plans in 2009, and set up a joint Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. Flood plain management is just one example—nothing has really changed.

The good news is that members of both parties agree further action is desperately needed to address increasing extreme weather events. And for good reason.2011 has already set the record for most $1 billion natural disasters, more than 10 so far totaling over $50 billion and making the US home to more violent/costly weather than any country on earth.

In the absence of direction from Washington, cities are leading the way in preparing for the impacts of climate change. As our Thirsty for Answers report lays out--Norfolk, VA, Phoenix, AZ, St. Louis, MO, Miami, FL, Chicago, IL, Homer, AK—are all taking action, from using permeable pavement that lets water soak into the ground instead of overwhelming drainage and sewer systems, to reusing 90% of the water treated in municipal wastewater systems (Phoenix) for things like irrigation, industrial cooling, habitat restoration, and golf course watering.

Hopefully actions such as these--largely the product of increased extreme precipitation events, and more frequent and extreme droughts--will help people understand that the world around them is changing, and that things are being done to deal with those changes. Belief follows behavior.

If, for example, you live in Chicago and see that the white oak—Illinois’ state tree—has been banned from city planting lists, and trees from the South like sweet gum and swamp oaks are being planted instead because of suitability to rising temperatures, you will take note. Hopefully this awareness will lead to calls for greater climate preparedness actions, and a greater sense of urgency to deal with a problem that affects people of all parties.

Protect Our Winters, And Jobs

2011-09-14T20:56:06Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Most of us like a change in the weather every now and then. People in Dallas are probably feeling that way, after enduring 70 days over 100 degrees since July 4--perhaps a little winter wouldn't be bad down there.

But thanks to climate change, we are likely looking at a little less winter--or at least less wintery conditions--and more heat. That's not good news for the people who make their living off of winter. For example, over 600,000 jobs are supported by the snow sports industry nationwide, which generates $8.8 billion in federal and state tax revenue.

That’s why some of the most famous winter athletes are in Washington today to tell Congress about the impacts climate change is already having on their livelihoods, and the potentially greater threat it will pose in the near future. Oh yeah, and to tell Congress for once to do something, in this case allow the Environmental Protection Agency to do its job and clean up air pollution, including the junk that causes climate change.

Those athletes include internationally known snowboarders Jeremy Jones and Olympian Gretchen Bleiler, along with world champion extreme skier Chris Davenport. Their organization is called Protect Our Winters (POW).

In a letter to Congress released today, the group notes:

As representatives of 21 million skiers and snowboarders in the $66 billion snow sports industry, we are determined to protect our mountain economies, our sport, and the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Americans from the effects of climate change. We must ensure that vibrant, prosperous winters endure for generations to come, and therefore support protecting one of America’s greatest assets - a stable climate - and strongly oppose all Congressional efforts to undermine EPA’s authority to set carbon pollution standards.

Every major scientific body from every nation, including our own National Academy of Sciences, has spoken unequivocally on the realities and implications of climate change. 2010 was the warmest year on record, and every decade is now warmer than the last. Extreme weather has become the norm. In our work, we’ve witnessed first-hand climate impacts on our mountains, from reduced snowpack and melting glaciers to dying alpine forests and shorter winter seasons. There is no debate. Climate change is already happening and we’re seeing it every day.

A recent study by the US Geological Survey found that unusual trends in the snowpack in the Rocky Mountains are likely linked to levels of carbon pollution, and concludes that snowpack declines in the region during the last 30 years are "unusual" when compared with previous centuries. The study backs research that the USGS said estimates that as much as 60 percent of the snowpack declines in the late 20th century are because of carbon pollution, which is linked to higher global temperature averages.

That could strain cities whose water supplies are tied to mountain snowpack. Runoff from snow that accumulates at high altitude accounts for 60 to 80 percent of the annual water supply for more than 70 million people in the West, the U.S. Geological Survey says.

Sure there have been and will continue to be extreme snowfall seasons like the one we’ve just experienced in parts of the country, particularly in California and the Northwest. More extreme weather events having been taking place, as you’ve probably noticed, and will continue to in the future. That’s one of the impacts of a warming climate.

But general trends in many parts of the US point to snow melting earlier. That means shorter ski seasons, fewer dollars and fewer jobs.

POW’s letter to Congress goes on to add:

Economies from Maine to California, including resorts, hotels, restaurants, shops and thousands of other small businesses all rely on winter sports to maintain their vibrancy and welfare.

In the Rocky Mountain region alone, snow sports recreation contributes $11 billion to their local economy, which includes $2 billion in federal and state tax revenue. Without a stable climate, the economies of mountain communities everywhere and our valued lifestyle will be gone, not just for us, but for our children. Winter, as we know it, is on borrowed time.

Great Lakes National Parks Hurt By Climate Disruption

2011-07-13T14:26:43Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Our National Parks have been called 'America's Best Idea.'

But a new report we've released today with the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization shows how National Parks in the Great Lakes region are already suffering from the impacts of climate disruption, and are set to suffer more. Climate change is the greatest threat our National Parks have ever faced. Not dealing with it now would be a horrible idea.

Our report, Great Lakes National Parks in Peril: The Threats of Climate Disruption, features new information on rising temperatures in the Parks. The Parks we focus on are the five largest on the Great Lakes: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (NL) in Indiana (near Chicago); Sleeping Bear Dunes NL, Pictured Rocks NL, and Isle Royale National Park (NP) in Michigan (just offshore from Minnesota); and Apostle Islands NL in Wisconsin. Our press release sums up the report.

The study focuses on impacts already taking place as well as those projected to happen with rising temperatures. Among the startling conclusions:

Higher temperatures. Summers in Indiana Dunes could become as hot by late in this century (2070- 2099) as summers in Gainesville, Florida, have been in recent history (1971-2000). Summers in Sleeping Bear Dunes could become as hot as those in Lexington, Kentucky, recently have been.

Less winter ice. Higher air and water temperatures already are reducing winter ice cover on the Great Lakes, a trend expected to accelerate. Lake Michigan may have some winters with no ice cover in as soon as 10 years, and Lake Superior may typically be ice-free in about three decades.

Major erosion of shoreline and related features. With less ice and more open waters, the lakes will have more waves in winter than before, especially during strong storms, increasing erosion threats to park shorelines and structures. The park staff at Sleeping Bear Dunes has expressed concern that the park’s signature perched dunes, atop towering bluffs above the shorelines, could be vulnerable to accelerated loss from increased erosion, resulting from a loss of winter ice and snow cover that keeps the dunes’s sand from blowing away and from more waves undercutting the bluffs on which the dunes perch.

Loss of wildlife. In Isle Royale, the moose population has declined, as have the numbers of the wolves that depend on them as prey. Other park mammals at risk as the climate changes include lynx and martens. Birds at risk of being eliminated from the parks include common loons and ruffed grouse, iconic birds of the Great Lakes and the North Woods.

Dale Engquist, former superintendent, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and president, Chicago Wilderness Trust, said at the release of the report:

Change in nature is natural. But the changes we face with the accelerated rate of global climate change that our human activities have caused don’t allow millennia or even centuries for adaption; the changes now will take place in only decades without time for nature to adapt.

Larry J. MacDonald, mayor, Bayfield, Wisconsin, added:

The City of Bayfield, as the gateway community to the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, faces the financial reality that climate change will bring tremendous economic challenges to our National Lakeshore-based local tourism economy. We need to continue to respect and protect Lake Superior. When the Lake is healthy, our community and the Apostle Islands will continue to prosper.

The new RMCO/NRDC report also concludes:

The amount of rain falling in heavy storms in the Midwest increased by 31 percent over the past century. This is well above the national average of 22 percent.

Winds over the Great Lakes already are stronger than they used to be. Lake Superior wind speeds have increased by 12 percent since 1985.

The waters in the Great Lakes are hotter, with their temperatures having increased more in recent decades than air temperatures have. Lake Superior’s summer water temperatures rose about 4.5 degrees from 1979 to 2006, roughly double the rate at which summer air temperatures have gone up over the surrounding land.

In Isle Royale NP, the moose population is down to about 515, half the park’s long-term average. Temperatures higher than moose can tolerate could be responsible—as in nearby northwest Minnesota, where the moose population has crashed in the past two decades from 4,000 to fewer than 100 animals, coinciding with higher temperatures. Also, warmer winters in Isle Royale enable enough ticks to overwinter and cause such a large loss of blood among the moose that they are more vulnerable to the park’s wolves.

Isle Royale’s wolf population has fallen, too. The park’s moose make up 90 percent of the wolves’s prey, and declines in the moose population threaten the wolves. The park now has only 16 wolves in two packs, compared to 24 wolves in four packs a few years ago.

Botulism outbreaks linked to high water temperatures and low lake levels now kill hundreds to thousands of birds a year in Sleeping Bear Dunes NL. There are so many dead birds cover the park’s beaches that the National Park Service patrols from June through November to clean up the bird carcasses.

In 2010, a tick of the type that carries Lyme disease was confirmed at Isle Royale for the first time -- a fact apparently being reported publicly for the first time in this report. Cold temperatures previously prevented the ticks that carry Lyme disease from reaching so far north, but their spread into the region had been projected as the climate gets hotter. The Lyme disease ticks also apparently have spread to nearby Grand Portage National Monument for the first time.

Let's act now to protect these special places.

"Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change"

2011-06-28T20:59:40Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Sound preposterous? At least an over-statement?

Well that's the headline of the first part of a series published today in Scientific American. The full title: "Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change."

Are the recent extreme events truly no longer examples of predictions, but instead reality? The article notes:

Increasingly, the answer is yes. Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were "consistent" with the predictions of climate change. No more. "Now we can make the statement particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming," says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

Munich Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance companies--companies that insure insurance companies--tends to agree with that sentiment, according to the piece. The company pays close attention to these events because the buck stops with them when it comes to damage.

"Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change," says Peter Hoppe, head of Munich Re's Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: "It's as if the weather machine had changed up a gear."

I don't know about you, but I don't think of Scientific American as exactly a lefty advocacy rag.

Pretty amazing stuff. Very much worth reading this piece, and the ones to be published as part of the series in coming days.

USA Today Editorial: Climate Deniers Like "Birthers"

2011-05-18T15:39:00Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Last week I wrote about the recent National Academy of Sciences report, America's Climate Choices. But I think the editorials below from USA Today and the San Francisco Chronicle do a much better job of dealing directly with the importance of the study. For USA Today in particular, this is a strong stand.

From USA Today: Our view: America, pick your climate choices

One way to deal with a problem is to pretend it doesn't exist. This approach has the virtue of relieving you from having to come up with a solution, spend money or make tough choices. The downside, of course, is that leaky faucets and other problems rarely solve themselves and, in fact, usually get worse if ignored.

Read full editorial >>

From the San Francisco Chronicle: Denial won't make climate change go away

There are truthers who think the Sept. 11 attacks were staged by the U.S. government. Then there are birthers who believe President Obama isn't native born. And then there are the deniers who refused to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

Read full editorial >>

National Academy of Sciences Report: Act on Climate

2011-05-12T21:21:48Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

As The Washington Post reported today, people along the Mississippi River and its swollen tributaries are facing a very difficult decision: should they flood the farms to save the cities?

That’s a tough spot to be in, and one we are more likely to face as a result of climate change, according to a report released today, America’s Climate Choices, by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.

The report states:

The impacts of climate change—on coasts, water resources, agriculture, ecosystems, transportation systems, and other human and natural systems—can generally be expected to intensify with warming.

That warming, the report says,

…is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems. Each additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted commits us to further change and greater risks.

America’s Climate Choices was requested by Congress several years ago, as The New York Times reported today. Congress had asked for “action-oriented advice” on how the United States should be reacting to the potential consequences of climate change. The reports advice:

The federal government should immediately undertake the development of a national adaptation strategy and build durable institutions to implement that strategy and improve it over time.

Though climate change science analyzes climate patterns over long periods of time--not any particular weather event—it can safely be said that today all weather is influenced by climate change.

"All extreme weather events are now subject to human influence," said Peter Gleick, a climate and water scientist and the president of the Pacific Institute, at a Capitol Hill briefing on Monday organized by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). "We are loading the dice and painting higher numbers on them."

As reported in Grist, Dr. Gleick told the AMS briefing that increasing temperatures aren't necessarily leading to more frequent rainfall events, but they are leading to more intense rainfall events. He added that we're seeing the same number of storms, but those storms are more likely to be the kind that cause severe flooding.

This is due in part to the fact that there is now about four percent more water vapor in the air than there was three decades ago. Heat-trapping gasses like carbon dioxide (CO2) allow moisture to build up in the air. Increased moisture—because of increased levels of CO2--invigorates storms and leads to more inches of rain.

As a result of warming and higher sea-surface temperatures, storms--whether thunderstorms, snow storms, tropical cyclones, or the massive storm systems pounding the Mississippi basin--when supplied with increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation increasing the risk of flooding.

That’s what’s been happening around the Mississippi River. Torrential rains over an extended period of time have caused the Big Muddy and some of the rivers that flow into it to hit record or near record levels, or crests. On Tuesday in Memphis water levels came within inches of hitting the highest mark ever recorded, during the 1937 flood. The Army Corps of Engineers last week blew up almost two miles of levees causing the flooding of over 130,000 acres of farmland, in an effort to prevent more damage downriver.

As the Grist post points out, flooding like the Mississippi River is seeing in 2011 used to be considered extremely unusual, yet thanks to the climate crisis, floods are becoming more frequent and more severe over much of the Mississippi River basin.

The Grist post cites Hannibal, MO as an example. The record flood stage set there in 1993 exceeded the calculated level for a flood so bad it’s only supposed to happen once every 500 years. In 2008 they had a flood so big it’s only supposed to happen once every 200 years. In 2001 Hannibal suffered a flood that's only supposed to happen every 50- to 100-years. And in 1986 and 1996 the city experienced floods so bad they’re only supposed to happen every 25-50 years. In the same general time period, Hannibal experienced five floods that are only supposed to happen once every 10-to 25-years.

As today’s New York Times piece noted of the America’s Climate Choices:

The nation’s scientific establishment issued a stark warning to the American public on Thursday: Not only is global warming real, but the effects are already becoming serious and the need has become “pressing” for a strong national policy to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Democracy Inaction: Koch Brother's Money and Congress

2011-02-07T19:06:28Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

I won't waste a lot of your time here, just please read this story in Sunday's LA Times.

It reports in comprehensive detail the tale of the two brothers' horrifically outsized influence over American politics.

I've blogged on the Koch's a bunch of times before, here and here, and there is great coverage out there of Charles and David, particularly Jane Mayer's profile of Manhattan socialite David Koch (Charles lives in Wichita, where Koch Industries--the nation's second most valuable privately held company--is based). The two are reportedly worth over $21 billion each.

The LA Times article lays bare the Koch's purchase of power, through their own donations, their pet astroturf group--Americans For Prosperity--and the contributions of their employees.

How much influence did the Koch's and Americans for Prosperity have on the mid-term elections?

Here's just one example: on January 5, the LA Times article reports, while new, mostly extremely conservative House members were being ushered into the House Chamber for the first time, David Koch was meeting with House Majority Leader John Boehner, and Americans for Prosperty head Tim Phillips was meeting with the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican Fred Upton of Michigan.

That's just a hint at what at least $40 million buys. Again, see the LA Times article for all the gory details of how the brothers have used their dollars to push their extreme right agenda, one that that nakedly favors their business interests. Those interests include oil, gas and chemicals. Thus the visit to the House and Commerce Committee Chair.

Oddly enough, before he large received direct and indirect support from the Koch's, Upton was perceived as a moderate on environmental issues and critized for being such by conservatives. But in the last election cycle, Koch employees were among Upton's top 10 donors. Now he's authoring Wall Street Journal Op-Ed pieces with AFP boss Tim Phillips and doing his best to discredit the Environmental Protection Agency and strip it of authority to protect American's health.

It's mourning in America.

Koch Brothers Hire PR Firm To Combat Public Outrage

2011-02-02T14:21:17Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Over the past weekend, billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, among the biggest funders of right-wing causes and owners of the nation's second-largest privately held company, held their annual gathering of vastly wealthy ultra-conservative donors. The invite-only get together was held at an expensive Rancho Mirage, CA resort, and featured a private security force hired by the brothers. (Good coverage in this LA Times story.)

A gathering of average Americans and capitalists it was not. This was the eighth year the brothers have hosted the affair, previous keynote speakers including rational-thinker Glen Beck.

Except this meeting was different. Having been outed as bank-rolling anti-democratic astroturf advocacy organizations, this Koch extravaganza was greeted by nearly 1,000 regular folk protesters.

In the wake of the embarassment, the brothers decided to do what they know best: fork out big bucks to buy inauthentic mainstream credibility. As Politico reported today:

They’ve hired a team of p.r. pros with experience working for top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Arnold Schwarzenegger to quietly engage reporters to try to shape their Koch coverage, and commissioned sophisticated polling to monitor any collateral damage to the image of their company, Koch Industries.

There is certainly need for damage control. A recent New Yorker piece by Jane Mayer outed in detail the Koch's funding of astroturf groups such as American for Prosperity, even though David Koch originally denied having ever associated with anyone from the group. This must have been especially galling for the New York socialite, as it was compounded by an ensuing New York Times Op-Ed by Frank Rich, who helped take the veil off a man who is usually seen in the social pages and lauded for his $100 million dollar gifts to New York cultural institutions.

The Koch Brothers own Wichita, KS-based Koch Industries, which has holdings in the oil, gas, chemical and consumer products sectors. One of the companies they own is Georgia Pacific, makers of popular paper towels and toilet paper.

Americans for Prosperity is just one of the myriad astroturf groups the Koch's have funded to push their extreme-right, self-serving agenda. A recent Greenpeace report chronicles the web of that funding.

Jane Mayer, in her New Yorker story, quotes long-time observer of the Washington scene, Charles Lewis, who founded the non-partisan watchdog group the Center for Public Integrity as saying:

The Koch's are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it.

The brothers claim that in bank-rolling right wing think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and others they are only supporting the fostering of ideas, including less government intervention in the private sector.

Yet as I noted in a previous blog:

a New York Observer story, '7 Ways the Koch Bros. Benefit from Corporate Welfare,' illustrates how the brothers are actually not so anti-government. In fact, they really like government intervention as long as it is bent to serve their business interests. And their business interests are doing just fine: according to the most recent Forbes 400 list, David Koch just passed Michael Bloomberg to become New York's richest man and the sixth richest American over all, worth $21.5 billion.

Today's Politico story further elaborates on the Koch brothers thinking and the impact of the media attention:

Personally, the brothers and their executives were rattled by the scrutiny, according to a conservative source who has closely tracked the Kochs’ philanthropy and their meetings, but who contends the Kochs largely brought the heightened scrutiny on themselves.

“They somehow thought that they could runs tens of millions of dollars in ads, but fly under the radar screen and that nobody was going to find out,” said the source. “So they’re scrambling now because they weren’t nearly as prepared for the fallout as they should have been.”

Scrambling also apparently includes hiring thugs to threaten journalists attempting to cover this weekend's high-roller confab. Once again from the Politico story:

Security manned every doorway and stairwell near the ballrooms where Koch events were held, and threatened to jail this POLITICO reporter while he waited in line at the resort’s café, after he stopped by a Koch conference registration table.

Grassroots democracy in action.

Note: In eary edition of this blog i incorrectly identified Koch Industries as owning Kimberly Clark. They actually own competitor Georgia Pacific

Sneaky Grinch Appears in Kansas, With a Whole Bunch of Coal

2010-12-21T20:00:16Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

If in the odd chance you’re looking for an opportunity to be disgusted by political malfeasance, look no farther than Kansas.

Last week the state’s Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) rammed through the permit approval for a new, polluting and un-needed massive coal-fired power plant. The 895 Megawatt behemoth is not needed in Kansas: approximately 80 percent of its power is slated to be shipped out of state. But Governor Mark Parkinson wanted it and appears to have forced his Health and Environment department to approve the permit before January 2 when new Environmental Protection Agency regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions take effect that would require plants to install millions of dollars of greenhouse gas controls.

If you think no pressure was placed on the agency to issue the permit, you might wonder why employees were ‘voluntarily’ working weekends to sort through the approximately 6,000 public comments on the proposal. That’s odd since a previous review of 800 comments took sixteen months. You can find more about the permit here.

As I’ve noted in a previous blog, Governor Parkinson was against this plant before he was for it. Any realistic political observer has no doubt that the Governor had the former KDHE director fired because it was clear then Secretary Rod Bremby was not in favor of the plant. As I noted earlier on Bremby’s firing

The reason: Rod Bremby had shown the courage to stand up to Big Coal and the Koch Brothers (who appear to own the Kansas Legislature, judging by the number of lobbyists they employ). Bremby had been the first state official in the United States to deny the permit for a dirty new coal plant based on the health impacts of its global warming emissions. He was backed up by then Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who vetoed efforts to overturn Bremby’s decision, and her lieutenant, Mark Parkinson.

Back then, Parkinson was against plant, to be developed in the town of Holcomb by the Sunflower Rural Electric Cooperative. As Parkinson said at the time (March of 2008): "Why legislators are supporting Wyoming coal and Colorado energy while putting at risk the economy and health of Kansans is beyond me."

It’s a good question. The plant is being developed in Holcomb by KS-based Sunflower Electric Cooperative, but about 80% of the power would be purchased by Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission to power Colorado homes and businesses. Coal for the plant would have to be shipped in from Wyoming, meaning Kansas dollars make the return trip.

Undoubtedly this decision will be challenged in the courts, and hopefully by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Kansans and justice deserve at least as much.

Victim or the Crime: Dubious Industry Claims about EPA Health Protections

2010-12-15T21:45:44Z

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

A recent report by the Brattle Group paints a bleak picture of the impact of impeding Environmental Protection Agency public health regulation updates on the nation’s power sector. The report’s conclusions are along the lines of other, industry-funded studies, which have been challenged in many quarters.

What the Brattle Report and others like fail to account for is the vast public health benefits of continuing to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. A report last year from the National Academy of Sciences found that, using 2005 data, the health impacts from coal-fired power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM) were about $62 billion a year. Another report from the Clean Air Task Force using more recent EPA data found that annual health impacts from these same pollutants cause $100 billion in health impacts.

The Brattle report states that pollution control costs and plant shutdowns will be concentrated in certain regions of the country, particularly the Midwest, and the Northeast. Not surprisingly, the adverse health impacts caused by these power plants will also be concentrated in these regions, as the map on page 11 of the Clean Air Task Force report.

In a June 2010 Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA found that the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule to control power plant emissions (SO2, NOx and PM) largely from the Midwest will “yield more than $120 to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014, including the value of avoiding 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths….[which] far outweighs the estimated annual costs of $2.8 billion.” The proposed new standards are designed to fulfill the CAA’s “Good Neighbor Rule”, which prohibits upwind regions from polluting downwind regions.

Additionally, a new report by Charles Chichetti, a senior advisor to Navigant Consulting, looks at EPA’s analysis of the Transport Rule and finds that even EPA’s “staggering numbers substantially understate the adverse regional impacts of interstate pollution transfer as they fail to consider the resulting economic inequities and losses suffered by downwind states, in particular higher labor and health insurance costs, lost jobs, lost state and local tax revenue, and higher gasoline prices.”

The Chicetti study also takes on industry arguments that installing pollution controls required by the Transport Rule will be overly financially burdensome to local economies, and utilities and their customers, concluding:

“implementing the Transport Rule will stimulate the economies, increase employment and tax revenue, and hasten economic recovery in downwind areas. Under any reasonable set of assumptions, the Transport Rule benefits far outweigh compliance costs; each dollar invested in necessary pollution controls avoids $50-100 dollars in downwind costs annually.”

“Under highly probable conditions, refining EPA’s estimates would likely mean the Transport Rule benefits exceed compliance costs by about 100 times.”

Though emissions of other pollutants from power plants, such as cancer-causing toxics like mercury and dioxin, also have massive public health implications, their health impacts have not been widely quantified as EPA uses SO2, NOx and PM as a proxy for these emissions in their health analysis.

The Brattle Group report and industry would have us believe that the EPA under the Obama Administration is rashly and randomly issuing a thicket of new regulations that have no precedent or basis for their timing. The truth is that all power plant-related regulations and regulatory updates are mandated by legislation and the courts. Schedules for implementing these regulations and their updates have been widely known for years, as a host of utility company executives pointed out in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal:

“The electric sector has known that these rules were coming. Many companies, including ours, have already invested in modern air-pollution control technologies and cleaner and more efficient power plants. For over a decade, companies have recognized that the industry would need to install controls to comply with the act's air toxicity requirements, and the technology exists to cost effectively control such emissions, including mercury and acid gases.”

And

“Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability.” (see full text of letter below).

Overall, the Clean Air Act, signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1970 and Amended by George H. W. Bush in 1990, has done a very effective job in its 40 year history of protecting the air we breathe without damaging the economy.

Independent analysis by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concluded that the CAA saved Americans between $121 billion to $193 billion, while costing just $23 billion to $27 billion, between 1992 and 2002. That’s a financial return of 500 to 700%.

The environmental technology industry—spurred by environmental regulations and particularly the Clean Air Act—created 1.3 million total jobs between 1977 and 1991. Exports of environmental and pollution control technologies grew by 130 percent between 1993 and 2003, and were valued at $30 billion in 2004.

Along the way it’s also made some pretty impressive gains in public health. In fact, the Clean Air Act’s public health and economic benefits are among the nation’s most powerful legislative success stories.

Between 1970 and 1990, the Clean Air Act prevented 205,000 premature deaths; 21,000 cases of heart disease and 843,000 asthma attacks (to name a few benefits.)

Since 1980, we have reduced lead levels in the air by 92 percent lower, greatly reducing the number of children with impaired intelligence.

Since 1990, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act has reduced levels of the six most common air pollutants by 41 percent, while gross domestic product has grown 64 percent.

Most Americans want the EPA to keep on doing that job, according to a September 2010 Infogroup/ORC survey which found that “[m]ore than four out of five Americans (82 percent) support the work of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with 45 percent supporting it strongly compared to only 9 percent who strongly oppose it.”

Below are short summaries of the main pollution control also standards also coming down the pipeline

HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SMOG (GROUND-LEVEL OZONE)

Goal: Tighten health standards for smog pollution to protective levels.

Health Benefits: Save as many as 12,000 lives per year, prevent thousands of heart attacks, tens of thousands of asthma attacks and emergency room visits, and hundreds of thousands of lost work-days.

Formal rule name: Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Timeline: EPA is expected to finalize the new smog standards by the Summer of 2011.

Tens of millions of Americans live in areas where the air quality is frequently unhealthy to breathe due to smog. As a result, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board has unanimously recommended that the EPA tighten the standards in order to adequately protect public health.

According to the EPA, tightening the standard will prevent or avoid the following health impacts each year:

- As many as 12,000 premature deaths;

- 58,000 asthma attacks;

- 21,000 hospital and emergency room visits;

- 5,300 heart attacks;

- Over 2.1 million missed school days; and

- 420,000 lost work days.

As the EPA explains:

Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for individuals with lung disease. Ozone exposure also increases the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease. Children are at increased risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.

STANDARDS TO REDUCE TOXIC POWER PLANT AIR POLLUTION

Goal: Establish standards to reduce toxic air pollution from thousands of power plants.

Health Benefits: Save as many as 8,000-10,000 lives per year, prevent respiratory and cardiovascular disease, reduce lost work-days, and reduce the exposure of children to mercury and lead.

Timeline: EPA is expected to finalize the standards in November 2011, with compliance required no later than January 2015.

Formal rule name (anticipated): National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Electric Generating Units.

REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING FROM POWER PLANTS

Goal: Establish standards to reduce global warming pollution from power plants.

Reduce deaths and illnesses from heat waves, air pollution, infectious diseases and extreme weather events.

Timeline: EPA may begin the regulatory process in 2011, focusing on power plants (standards for other industrial sources would follow in separate processes.)

Formal rule name: Since the process has not officially begun there is not yet a formal rule name.

Under the Clean Air Act, the pollution that causes global warming must be treated like any other air pollution.

Global Warming Health Effects:

As the EPA has noted: … “(T)here are four main categories of health effects:

Increased frequency, duration, and intensity of heat waves. The associated health problems of heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke will be become increasingly common. The very old and very young are especially vulnerable, as well as those who are poor, socially isolated or who have chronic illnesses.

Increased air pollution. Increased temperatures cause increased production of ground level ozone, the main component of smog. This will increase rates of asthma and other respiratory diseases. It also makes breathing difficult for those who already have cardiac or respiratory ailments. Pollen production and allergies are also increasing as a result of increased CO2 concentrations.

Infectious diseases. Climate change is altering the range of disease-carrying organisms. West Nile virus carried by mosquitoes was not as prevalent in the United States until recently. More than 25,000 cases and more than 1,000 deaths have been recorded.

Extreme weather events. This includes severe storms, increases in both drought and flooding, and associated features such as erosion and wild fires. The commenter indicates that we simply do not have the public health capacity to respond to increasing numbers of large-scale disasters that are difficult to predict. “

Recently, 136 national and state organizations and experts signed a letter to Congress stating that “"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for protecting the public's health from climate change, and we urge you to fully support the EPA in fulfilling its responsibilities.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wall Street Journal (12/08/2010)

We're OK With the EPA's New Air-Quality Regulations

Your editorial "The EPA Permitorium" (Nov. 22) mischaracterizes the EPA's air-quality regulations. These are required under the Clean Air Act, which a bipartisan Congress and a Republican president amended in 1990, and many are in response to court orders requiring the EPA to fix regulations that courts ruled invalid.

The electric sector has known that these rules were coming. Many companies, including ours, have already invested in modern air-pollution control technologies and cleaner and more efficient power plants. For over a decade, companies have recognized that the industry would need to install controls to comply with the act's air toxicity requirements, and the technology exists to cost effectively control such emissions, including mercury and acid gases. The EPA is now under a court deadline to finalize that rule before the end of 2011 because of the previous delays.

To suggest that plants are retiring because of the EPA's regulations fails to recognize that lower power prices and depressed demand are the primary retirement drivers. The units retiring are generally small, old and inefficient. These retirements are long overdue.

Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability.

The time to make greater use of existing modern units and to further modernize our nation's generating fleet is now. Our companies are committed to ensuring the EPA develops and implements the regulations consistent with the act's requirements.

Peter Darbee, chairman,president and CEO,PG&E Corp.; Jack Fusco, president and CEO, Calpine Corp.; Lewis Hay, chairman and CEO, NextEra Energy, Inc.; Ralph Izzo, chairman, president and CEO, Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.; Thomas King, president, National Grid USA,; John Rowe, chairman and CEO, Exelon Corp.; Mayo Shattuck, chairman, president and CEO, Constellation Energy Group; Larry Weis, general manager, Austin Energy