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
Frank K. says:
August 23, 2011 at 5:22 am commenting on…..
“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.”
Thanks Frank K. how wrong could they get that statement!! These people seem to lack the engineers ability to identify the poor quality of the climate modelers, unless of course they are referring to the former success of climate models as sold to the gullible as a substitute for real science. This could be, because they have an agenda to sell themselves, just like the social planners, the energy sellers, the alternative energy sources and sellers, the green fringe groups, the environment adjusters, the we hate us groups, the money movers and exchangers, all jumped on the climate bandwagon.
The problem is of course that when you start from a false premise, the rest just does not work as the unintended consequences pile up and tend to waste rather than save anything. In this case the cart is pointing the wrong way and the horse should be facing the direction of travel rather than facing the cart as any budding engineer or farmer should know.
re: “more than 75 percent of natural disasters are triggered directly or indirectly by weather and climate”
When I see statistics like that, I can’t help wondering what sort of natural disasters would NOT be “triggered directly or indirectly by weather and climate”. Volcanos, I suppose. Not to many of those in North America. Earthquakes. Even with today’s, the frequency is far far lower than for, for example, hurricanes. Meteors? What else is left?
Of course the vast majority of natural disasters are weather or climate related. Always have been and, until we invent weather-control satellites, they always will. Missing from their analysis is any evidence that the problem is getting worse for reasons other than the equally obvious demographic trends to build more in flood plains and other high risk areas or political decisions to skimp on infrastructure maintenance.
If you want to try to understand why reports of the dismal state of our infrastructure have been a constant of American life for many decades here’s a story that might illuminate the problem for you.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/19/139749870/a-big-bridge-in-the-wrong-place
“The Tappan Zee crosses one of the widest points on the Hudson — the bridge is more than three miles long. And if you go just a few miles south, the river gets much narrower. As you might expect, it would have been cheaper and easier to build the bridge across the narrower spot on the river.”…
“There was an alternate proposal for a bridge at a narrower spot nearby. The proposal was put forward by top engineers at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
But that proposal was killed by New York governor Thomas E. Dewey.”…
“If the bridge had been built just a bit south of its current location — that is, if it had been built across a narrower stretch of the river — it would have been in the territory that belonged to the Port Authority.
As a result, the Port Authority — not the State of New York — would have gotten the revenue from tolls on the bridge. And Dewey needed that toll revenue to fund the rest of the Thruway.
So Dewey was stuck with a three-mile-long bridge.”…
“Today, the Tappan Zee is in bad shape, and the State of New York is looking into fixing or replacing it. But none of the proposals would move the bridge to a narrower spot on the river. It’s too late now: Highways and towns have grown up based on the bridge’s current location.
We’re stuck with a long bridge at one of the widest spots in the river. The repairs are expected to cost billions of dollars.”
The infra-structure problem is not from climate change, its from the political process that sets the maintenance budgets. Simply put, new construction is sexy for budgeters, maintenance is not.
It is more important to fix the ones about to fail tomorrow than identify the ones that might have problems in 20 years.
The real problem with dollars for maintenance and repair is that the Representative, Senator, or President can’t put their name to it. Only new construction gets named.
RE: CinbadtheSailor: (August 23, 2011 at 4:39 am)
“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.”
Having a network of underground shelters might not be such a bad idea, but if they are only going to be needed once every 100 generations or so, then it is not the responsibility of this generation to bear the full cost of their construction. We should be thinking about potential over the horizon events, but it is not the responsibility of any one generation to bear the cost of preparing for them.
The clock is still ticking down on the next magnitude 9+ Cascadia Subduction Earthquake, which, if it follows in sequence with the last 6 events, is due within sixty years of 2170. Maybe, by that time, there will be sufficient knowledge and legal liability arrangements to allow this impending event to be ‘forced’ to occur at a time when everyone is ready for it. But it is not our responsibility to fully develop this capacity now.
My first 1gb hard drive cost $2500. Now I can buy a 1tb for $100. So yes, some things do go down in cost, sometimes dramatically so.
Computer tech has seemingly bucked the trend with regularity. I say seemingly though because we are not talking about the same things really, new denser technologies compared with earlier is like apples and apple seeds. I should have said the same item or task will rise in price due to inflationary pressures and devaluation. Made in China versus USA alleviates this very pressure. But point taken anyway.
It does sound like you over-payed for that 1 GB even if it was a real screamer Ultra SCSI or 15k PATA. I do remember getting PATA 2 GB for around $200-ish. Today in mid-2011, internal SATA 2 TB are in the sweet spot and run $89, and $79 is the normal price on sale. Don’t buy a 1 TB for $100 because it is relatively over-priced, and in most configurations the density is lower. Transfer speeds are phenomenal on most 2 TB. And yes, I am talking about 512 byte sectors here.