From Vanderbilt University , damn the torpedoes uncertainty and full speed ahead, there’s a trillion dollars at stake:
Time to begin anticipating and adapting to climate change
Despite the uncertainties surrounding climate change, it is time to start developing effective strategies that will keep the nation’s transportation systems and other critical infrastructure running in the face of the adverse impacts that seem increasingly likely to occur.
This consensus emerged from a two-day leadership summit that brought together major stakeholders from the $1 trillion-plus freight transportation sector with climate change researchers to discuss the issue for the first time. The meeting was held in June at Vanderbilt University and was sponsored by the Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research (VECTOR), Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment (VIEE) and the University of Memphis’ Intermodal Freight Transportation Institute.
“It is increasingly clear that climate change will have potentially large impacts on the nation’s highways, railroads, waterways, airports and pipelines. In all likelihood, these impacts will increase in the future, so we have to learn how to plan ahead,” said George Hornberger, director of VIEE and distinguished professor of civil and environmental engineering.
Weather-related damage to nation’s infrastructure on the rise
According to the University Center for Atmospheric Research, more than 75 percent of natural disasters are triggered directly or indirectly by weather and climate. In the U.S., more than a quarter of our gross national product (+$2 trillion) is sensitive to weather and climate events, which affect our health, safety, economy, environment, transportation systems and national security. Each year, the U.S. sustains billions of dollars in weather-related damages caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, flooding, heavy snows and drought. The threats associated with extreme weather and climate change are substantial and adapting to climate change will be crucial to economic and social stability, for example by making future water, food and energy supplies reliable and sustainable. Contributing to these costs is the problem of the nation’s aging infrastructure, which needs $2.2 trillion in improvements to meet today’s demands, according to the 2009 National Infrastructure Report Card by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Unless the nation begins taking appropriate measures, these costs are likely to increase: “It appears to us that more extreme weather events – like floods and hurricanes – are becoming more frequent and pronounced and we need to be prepared to adapt to the prospect that what have been episodic events in the past become chronic features of our operational landscape in the future,” observed Craig Philip, Chief Executive Officer of the Ingram Barge Company and a member of the conference steering committee.
The Mississippi River floods in April and May, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the waterway in the past century, the flooding on the Missouri that began in June and the above-average wildfire season that burned 1.3 million acres in the month of June in the Southern Plains and Southwest, are dramatic examples of the kinds of natural disasters that experts predict will become increasingly severe and frequent.
“Right now people are waking up to the fact that they will have to adapt, but very few are walking the walk,” commented Mark Abkowitz, co-organizer of the meeting and professor of engineering management at Vanderbilt. “If we’re not careful and begin taking actions soon, we will fall so far behind that playing catch-up will be difficult.”
Reasons for current lack of action
The summit discussions identified several reasons for the current lack of action: 1) uncertainty in the timing and magnitude of climate change; 2) insufficient knowledge of how these changes will impact the performance of critical infrastructure systems; 3) the succession of short-term crises that deflect attention and resources; and, 4) lack of political leadership.
So far, the federal government has focused almost exclusively on mitigation: developing methods that reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released in various industrial processes or sequestering carbon deep underground.
“Regardless of the success of mitigation efforts, we will need to adapt. Even if we could completely stop injecting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the concentration of carbon dioxide is already significantly higher than historic levels so we would still have to handle the consequences,” said Hornberger. Key initiatives for next five years Summit delegates identified several key initiatives that should be undertaken in the next five years:
- Identify the critical infrastructure that is most vulnerable to damage and disruption. Of particular importance are bridges, highways, rail lines, airports and other key transportation facilities for which there are no alternatives;
- Assess the cost of impacts to key infrastructure components. Putting a dollar sign on the potential damage for non-action helps determine the benefits of the proposed protective measures;
- Develop better tools and models for performing risk assessments. Right now the climate models are more accurate at the global and regional scale, but they are not capable of predicting the local effects that planners need;
- Define and communicate climate change problems in terms that decision makers can understand;
- Improve dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders.
“There is no reason why we should wait to get started down this path,” said Abkowitz. “As long as our approach remains flexible, we can adapt as better information becomes available.”
Videos of the plenary sessions of the meeting can be viewed on the Vanderbilt School of Engineering’s website at http://engineering.vanderbilt.edu/CivilAndEnvironmentalEngineering/News/PodcastsVideos.aspx
“we can adapt as better information becomes available”
So, they are not sure what is going on, but they want our money just in case…
And this is coming from an University?
Geez..
I blame Hollywood!
Is it true that if you think the rest of the world is mad it’s really you!
It took them two day days to show leadership and say “we want money too!”. Pathetic.
It’s very discouraging that $’s trump science every time. I feel that we are still losing the war even though we win a battle once in a while.
Actually – they’re right! When it’s cold everything stops working – at least it does in the UK!
Power grid, roads, railways, airports, exposed phone lines, frozen water pipes, people die of hypothermia ‘cos they can’t afford to heat their homes… Blah, blah… And we are totally unprepared for it…
Must say, this seems (relatively) sensible. Improving infrastructure is never a bad thing and would have benefits regardless of the truth or otherwise of AGW.
Of course, it would be best if any money involved came out of existing streams currently feeding the Mitigation Monster rather than as additional costs but one step at a time, guys…….
Wow. I thought the first paragraph was a load of bunkum, but every paragraph and bullet point that followed was a mishmash of all the familiar AGW cliches, with a little spin for “infrastructure” and “adaptation.”
And the bottom line was obvious: “Make some room for us infrastructure guys at the federal climate change feeding trough. We’re hungry too!”
Nobody knpws what the weather wil be in three days let alone the climate change in 50-100 years time.
Do what we always do, use an umberella when it rains and a sunshade when it shines. Keep inside during storms. That should be OK for 99.99% of the time, the remaining get clear till its over.
Hold on.
taking appropriate measures == To Spend Trillions
Yes folks, that is their train of thought. Note that the 2nd half of their logic (‘costs are likely to increase‘) will always be true anyway, nothing ever goes down in cost in the future. Even the most loony economists can’t imagine negative inflation over any period of time.
So, their boilerplate propaganda is nothing more than an intentional self-fulfilling prophecy. If we spend trillions in advance on an alarmist theory, the costs of future hurricanes, tornadoes (and nice sunny days) will accordingly go up in cost (but more than if we spent nothing in advance) validating their insane theory. But wait for it, still they will later say: ‘we spent trillions on preparing for these disasters and still they occurred, but they would have been worse if we hadn’t spent the money‘. Others will say: ‘we didn’t spend enough’. Rinse, repeat. Ad Infinitum. Allowing liberals to be involved in any fiscal matter is like letting your children go shopping on your credit card. A credit card that has no limits.
The smarter move is to spend nothing in advance for alarmism, and plan accordingly using actual historical events as the guide. Even smarter is to close down all taxpayer funded alarmists, sue for return of past monies spent, jail everyone involved in Enron style ‘pump and dumps’, carbon and insider trading, and call it a day.
Then, the normal people can live long and prosper.
This falls into the same category as re-insurance companies heavily supporting carbon cult “research”. They’re using the “science” as an officially justifiable way to throw off liability onto other industries.
Too bad the Italian Mafia never figured out how to use “science”; they’d be the masters of the world now instead of the Wall Street Mafia.
Extreme events by there [their?] very definition have a low probability of occurring, therefore is spending a lot of money to prepare for something that will hardly happens even sensible? If we take the argument further why not build underground shelters to avoid large meteorites which someday will come. Or ban passenger flights due to the increase in exposure to radiation which leads to cancer and life shortening.
Infrastructure is a problem in both the USA and Canada (ask any Quebecker about bridges failing and concrete slabs falling into roadways!), whether the climate changes drastically or doesn’t change at all. They have mixed two independent problems (or “problems”), which is typical of warmists. But there is a definite infrastructure problem that will require lots of money to fix.
IanM
A few points to make:
1. The Mississippi floods have nothing to do with Climate Change. Great rivers like this flood on regular cycles. It’s God’s will, the way the earth was designed. It says something about town planners that so many conurbations are built on the side of a river which floods every few decades……perhaps ‘common sense’ might be a bit higher up the agenda when such folks take their professional exams?!
2. The effects of heavy rain are amplified if you cut down forests. So if you want to sort that out you need to dedicate a few decades to enlightened replanting strategies. Go speak to the original American people if you need to learn about such things…….
3. El Nino-related weather events are periodic too. Nothing to do with climate change either – they’ve happened for centuries. Whilst it’s a good idea to have early warning systems and transportation route managerment strategies in place, places like California might like to think how they can most effectively set up their State to have sponge-like properties when the great el Nino rains come, as that will maximise the storage of water in the land, underground and in storage facilities. As they have droughts pretty regularly, there is some incentive to do this…..no doubt other states have slightly different issues, but if you thought about weather cycles on a 22 and 60 range, you might plan more holistically for what mother nature will throw at you…..
You could go on and on, but mostly it comes down to common sense.America experiences torrential rainstorms, mammoth snowfall, searing heat and drought as well as hurricanes and tornadoes at fairly regular intervals.
Either you learn to live with it, or you don’t.
But it ain’t going away any time soon…….
Chuck L says:
August 23, 2011 at 4:19 am
The lack of dollars from the global economic collapse will make it impossible to proceed with such grandiose, wasteful plans. The battle is won–the opponents are rallying behind the likes of Al Gore.
And what is the opinion that adverse impacts, obviously implied to be from global warming, are more likely to occur based on? Is it based on the fact that it has been over 1070 days since the last hurricane hit the mainland US? Is it based on the fact that the last two winters have been abnormally cold for many people? Is it based on the fact that sea level has stopped rising, at least temporarily?
Once again, science has things backwards. They start with the answer. “Global warming is real, how do I prove it?” That isn’t science, that is religion. Science starts with the question. “Is global warming real? What does the proof say?”
Once we get rid of the humans, think what a wonderful world we will have. We thought the DDT ban hoax was enough, but sadly we needed more.
Why not we play warmists first … Al Gore step forward we need to downsize your carbon footprint.
Climate silliness has even affected the security of Fort Knox, where rapid response means a solar powered golf cart with a top speed of 25mph.
http://www.army.mil/article/63645/Fort_Knox_Directorate_of_Emergency_Services_using_solar_powered_carts/
Ian L. McQueen is right! A 25 ton piece of a bridge pillar fell into the roadway, the third layer of rebar had been exposed for years. Yet, money was diverted to social programs, health, welfare, etc. Now, the bridge is closed, and, and, and how does one get to work? how many more buses, trucks, and cars go over the remaining bridge? what is the impact; ie, life of the remaining infrastructure that now has increased use? The cost of delay is the shortening the lifespan of the remaining bridges. A new bridge? just one of the costs.
Here’s a good one…
“Develop better tools and models for performing risk assessments. Right now the climate models are more accurate at the global and regional scale, but they are not capable of predicting the local effects that planners need.”
Climate models – more accurate?? I didn’t realize those words would be used in a sentence together…[LOL]
(Of course, with codes like NASA/GISS Model E, urge to start over and develop “better tools” is quite compelling…)
“adverse impacts that seem increasingly likely to occur”
Try that again? How about backwards? “occurences likely increasingly seeming to impact adversity”…make about as much sense, don’t you think? This is a grand example of erring to the cautious. It might happen, so in order to assuage the I-told-you-so’s if it does happen, we should squander out future, just in case. None of you would be surprised at the number of armchair world-savers that hold that view as common-sensical.
I don’t blame the transportation sector one bit for looking at climate change as a way to get federal and state money. I don’t beleive in ACC but I would do the same thing if I were in their shoes. Almost every industry out there has been trying to find a way to do the same thing. Business is business.
Blade says:
August 23, 2011 at 4:25 am
“Hold on…… ”
Right on, Blade. Well said.
The same for CinbadtheSailor August 23, 2011 at 4:39 am
Man has not, and can not, cause climate change[in the foreseeable future]
CO2 and the GHE has been debunked. Controlling CO2 emissions is moot.
Where are all these trillions going to come from?
What extra planning for that which we do not know can
be done beyond normal contingency planning that is
done anyway?
I believe building / improving infrastructures so they are capable to resist better to natural disasters is a good investment for the future . After all, natural disaster have happened in the past and will always happen, no matter if AGW is real or a bogus. If a trillion dollar has to be spent, better to use it for something that can actually bring benefit to the community, rather than waste them trying to contain or limit greenhouse gas emissions and ruining the economy. My only suggestion is don’t focus only on the natural disaster created by a potential warming, but also consider those that could occur as consequence of a potential cooling.
All else being equal, adaptation is likely a better strategy than mitigation in regards to climate change. This is especially true because of the uncertainty. Regardless, planning ahead is not a strong suit for our government at any level.