In a press release describing the study results it was noted:
"In addition to altering plant communities, the study predicts climate change will disrupt the ecological balance between interdependent and often endangered plant and animal species, reduce biodiversity and adversely affect Earth's water, energy, carbon and other element cycles .... The researchers found a shift of biomes, or major ecological community types, toward Earth's poles - most dramatically in temperate grasslands and boreal forests - and toward higher elevations. Ecologically sensitive "hotspots" - areas projected to undergo the greatest degree of species turnover - that were identified by the study include regions in the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau, eastern equatorial Africa, Madagascar, the Mediterranean region, southern South America, and North America's Great Lakes and Great Plains areas."
]]>The statement notes the many significant weather events during 2011 and that:
"Arctic sea ice extent was again well below normal in 2011. After tracking at record or near-record low levels for the time of year through the first half of 2011, the seasonal minimum, reached on 9 September, was 4.33 million square kilometres (35% below the 1979-2000 average). This was the second-lowest seasonal minimum on record, 0.16 million square kilometres above the record low set in 2007. Unlike the 2007 season, both the Northwest and Northeast Passages were ice-free for periods during the 2011 summer. Sea ice volume was even further below average and was estimated at a new record low of 4200 cubic kilometres, surpassing the record of 4580 cubic kilometres set in 2010."
]]>" Climate change is already beginning to affect the people and resources of New York State, and these impacts are projected to grow. At the same time, the state has the potential capacity to address many climate-related risks, thereby reducing negative impacts and taking advantage of possible opportunities."
Significantly, the report notes that extreme weather events are already increasing and that once certain "tipping points" are crossed there will be dramatic changes. Breaking New York into regions, the report sets forth the predicted changes in temperature and precipitation over the coming decades and notes "[t]hese are neither best case nor worst case; actual changes could be lower if emissions are cut aggressively, or higher if the world continues on a business as usual course."
The report goes on to discus measures to adapt to the affects of climate change, ranging from updating regulations to modifying construction standards for everything from barns to bridges, tunnels and power plants.
]]>"Since planning for sea-‐level rise requires a comprehensive assessment of potential damages, we include sea-‐level rise impacts to sandy beach recreation value, habitat value, and beach tourism-‐related spending. These damages are more indirect than losses to upland structures and land, yet are also vital to understanding the true economic impact of sea-‐level rise."
In a press release announcing the study it was noted:
"The findings suggest that the cost and type of damage will vary depending on a community's economy, geography and local decisions about land use. For example, if sea level rises by 4.6 feet, Malibu beaches could lose almost $500 million in accumulated tourism revenue between now and 2100. Revenue losses would be much smaller at San Francisco's windswept Ocean Beach ($82 million), which attracts fewer visitors per year."
One of the co-authors noted that there are varying degrees of response which may be appropriate and while in the past seawalls were the solution of choice "our findings suggest that other policies such as beach nourishment or where possible, allowing the coastline to retreat, could be more cost effective."
-Steven Silverberg
"methane, nitrous oxide and ozone-depleting substances (largely from sources other than fossil fuels), also contribute significantly to warming. Some non-CO2 greenhouse gases have much shorter lifetimes than CO2, so reducing their emissions offers an additional opportunity to lessen future climate change."
The report notes that because these gases have a "shorter atmospheric lifetime" than carbon dioxide the beneficial effects could be realized more rapidly than can be achieved with reductions in carbon dioxide, although resulting in only a partial solution to climate change.
]]>In summarizing the decision, Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, stated:
"We address in this opinion the question whether the plaintiffs (several States, the city of New York, and three private land trusts) can maintain federal common law public nuisance claims against carbon-dioxide emitters (four private power companies and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority). As relief, the plaintiffs ask for a decree setting carbon-dioxide emissions for each defendant at an initial cap, to be further reduced annually. The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency action the Act authorizes, we hold, displace the claims the plaintiffs seek to pursue."
After noting that this action was commenced before the EPA began to take action to set rules governing the emission of greenhouse gases, the decision notes:
"it is an academic question whether, in the absence of the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions the Act authorizes, the plaintiffs could state a federal common law claim for curtailment of greenhouse gas emissions because of their contribution to global warming. Any such claim would be displaced by the federal legislation authorizing EPA to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions....The test for whether congressional legislation excludes the declaration of federal common law is simply whether the statute “speak[s] directly to [the] question” at issue. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618, 625 (1978); see Milwaukee II, 451 U. S., at 315; County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U. S. 226, 236–237 (1985).
We hold that the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants."
The Court also disagreed with the holding of the Second Circuit and the Plaintiffs' argument that federal common law claims are not displaced until the EPA exercises its rule making authority:
"Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants; the delegation is what displaces federal common law. Indeed, were EPA to decline to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions altogether at the conclusion of its ongoing §7411 rulemaking, the federal courts would have no warrant to employ the federal common law of nuisance to upset the agency’s expert determination. EPA’s judgment, we hasten to add, would not escape judicial review....EPA may not decline to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants if refusal to act would be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or other-wise not in accordance with law.” §7607(d)(9)(A). If the plaintiffs in this case are dissatisfied with the outcome of EPA’s forthcoming rulemaking, their recourse under federal law is to seek Court of Appeals review, and, ultimately, to petition for certiorari in this Court."
Finally, the Court noted that the Second Circuit had not addressed the issue of using State common law claims to impose limitations on emissions, since it had held that federal common law applied. As the issue of the preemptive effect of the Clean Air Act upon State common law claims had not been briefed, the Court left that issue for remand.
-Steven Silverberg
The Federal complaint states the basis for the claim as follows:
"The Public Trust Doctrine provides that our federal officials have a fiduciary duty to protect the atmosphere from the effects of human-induced global energy imbalance and to hold our country's vital natural resources in trust for present and future generations of citizens. Our federal government may not manage the trust resource in a way that substantially impairs the public interest in a healthy atmosphere."
The complaint does not claim that a specific action or actions should be taken only that the government must take action.
.
The Public Trust Doctrine has been described by the New York State Department of State, which administers New York's coastal resources as:
"The Public Trust Doctrine provides that public trust lands, waters, and living resources in a State are held by the State in trust for the benefit of all of the people, and establishes the right of the public to fully enjoy public trust lands, waters and living resources for a wide variety of recognized public uses."
The claim that the Public Trust Doctrine applies to climate change and its impacts upon the environment, on the one hand can be argued to be beyond the scope of the doctrine and on the other as a logical extension of the prior application of the doctrine. It will be interesting to see whether the courts view this as an intrusion into the realm of separation of powers or a mandate that must be enforced.
]]>"We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home."
In a call to action the report states:
"All nations must focus on a rapid transition to renewable energy sources and other strategies to reduce CO2 emissions. Nations should also avoid removal of carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These actions must be accomplished within a few decades."
The report also calls for preparing to adapt to those changes which are inevitable and notes that analysis of the changes that are coming is needed in order to understand what must be done to implement methods of adaptation.
]]>The report on New York, for example, notes in part:
"By the 2020s, a consensus of climate models project annual precipitation to increase by (sic) to 5%, and sea levels to rise by 2-5 inches—or roughly twice that under a rapid ice-melt scenario. ...Current 10-year floods are predicted to occur as often as every 6.5 years by the 2020s....Assuming a current 10-year flood triggered claims on just 1% of insured coastal properties (about $22 billion) then the increase in frequency during the period from 2020 to 2040 (three rather than two floods) could be expected to cost an extra $550 million per year ($22 billion over 20 years)."
The report goes on to note that in the event a category 3 hurricane hits New York City, it is predicted to flood a third of lower Manhattan, which is the home of the financial markets, where 160,000 people work. In addition, it is predicted that by 2020 heat related deaths in New York City alone could reach 850.
Similar effects are predicted in other states as a result of global warming, sea level rise and increased storms. Yet, the reports also point out that by preparing now and investing in programs and industries that can combat the effects of climate change there are opportunities.
Again referring to New York the report states:
"As dire as New York’s future seems from climate change, the state has a tremendous capacity for initiatives that will help offset these negative effects and produce positive results....A major investment in clean energy could create an estimated 109,000 jobs in New York State."
Likewise, in the case of California, the report notes:
"Although climate change could devastate vital sectors of California’s economy, the state is well-poised to benefit from developing renewable sources of energy. This is especially pertinent considering that California is the 12th largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world."
]]>The announcement reads in part:
"These top blogs offer some of the best writing out there. They contain a wealth of information for all segments of the environmental law and climate change industry, and include timely news items, expert analysis, practice tips, frequent postings and helpful links to other sites and sources."
According to the Supreme Court Site the "Question Presented" is as follows:
"The court of appeals held that States and private plaintiffs may maintain actions under federal common law alleging that defendants - in this case, five electric utilities - have created a "public nuisance" by contributing to global warming, and may seek injunctive relief capping defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at judicially-determined levels. The questions presented are: 1. Whether States and private parties have standing to seek judicially-fashioned emissions caps on five utilities for their alleged contribution to harms claimed to arise from global climate change caused by more than a century of emissions by billions of independent sources. 2. Whether a cause of action to cap carbon dioxide emissions can be implied under federal common law where no statute creates such a cause of action, and the Clean Air Act speaks directly to the same subject matter and assigns federal responsibility for regulating such emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency. 3. Whether claims seeking to cap defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at "reasonable" levels, based on a court's weighing of the potential risks of climate change against the socioeconomic utility of defendants' conduct, would be governed by "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" or could be resolved without "initial policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)."
]]>The studies are predicting a series of adverse impacts including:
"“Changes in the harmful algal bloom season appear to be imminent and we expect a significant increase in Puget Sound and similar at-risk environments within 30 years, possibly by the next decade,
Researchers at the University of Georgia, a NOAA Oceans and Human Health Initiative Consortium for Graduate Training site, looked at how global desertification — and the resulting increase in atmospheric dust based on some climate change scenarios — could fuel the presence of harmful bacteria in the ocean and seafood
A changing climate with more rainstorms on the horizon could increase the risk of overflows of dated sewage systems, causing the release of disease-causing bacteria, viruses and protozoa into drinking water and onto beaches. In the past 10 years there have been more severe storms that trigger overflows."
While the reports indicate some of thee effects could be the result of natural climate variations, nonetheless they pose serious potential impacts.
]]>"A great deal is already known about water and climate change in the Southwest. For our purposes, the following are some of the most important findings:
-Climate change will worsen the region‟s water crisis even if, as some models predict, there is no change in total annual precipitation.
-Agriculture in the Southwest is almost completely dependent on irrigation; the greatest climate risk to agriculture is not the direct effect of temperature or precipitation on crops, but the potential lack of water for irrigation.
-Published estimates of the costs of climate impacts on water resources are in the tens of billions of dollars annually for the United States as a whole, or about $1 billion each for California and for the Colorado River basin."
Some of the numbers reported in the study are:
"Taking into consideration only baseline growth of population and income, the Southwest‟s shortfall of water (today‟s overdraft plus additional water needed beyond today‟s annual rates, or green plus yellow in Figure 1) reaches 1,815 million acre feet over the 100-year period. Using the B1 climate assumptions – the least climate change that is still thought to be possible – the Southwest‟s shortfall grows to 2,096 million acre feet (green, yellow, and orange). Under the A2 climate assumptions – the temperature increase expected if the current trend in global greenhouse gas emissions continues – the shortfall reaches 2,253 million acre feet (adding the red segment). This shortfall must be met either from increases to supply (perhaps the most difficult and most expensive options as discussed below), additional groundwater withdrawals, or reductions to use – planned or unplanned."
]]>The summary of the Task Force findings is:
1. Sea level rise and coastal flooding from storm surge are already affecting and will increasingly affect New York’s entire ocean and estuarine coastline from Montauk Point to the Battery and up the Hudson River to the federal dam at Troy.
2. The likelihood that powerful storms will hit New York State’s coastline is very high, as is the associated threat to human life and coastal infrastructure. This vulnerability will increase in area and magnitude over time.
3. Natural shoreline features, such as wetlands, aquatic vegetation, dunes and barrier beaches, currently provide large‐scale services, such as flood protection, storm buffering, fisheries habitat, recreational facilities and water filtration, at almost no cost. These services would be prohibitively expensive to replicate with human‐built systems. New York is losing tidal marshes at a rapid pace and with them the natural infrastructure that protects the shore from floods, wave attack and erosion.
4. Sea level rise will cause all shoreline ecosystems to become more frequently inundated. Low‐lying locations will become permanently submerged. Habitats and the species associated with them may migrate landward; this migration, however, will be impeded by the density of development on much of the state’s shoreline and the widespread hardening of that shoreline.
5. Current investment and land‐use planning practices by both New York State and local governments are encouraging development in areas at high risk of coastal flooding and erosion.
6. Over the long term, cumulative environmental and economic costs associated with structural protection measures, such as seawalls, dikes, and beach nourishment, may be more expensive and less effective than non‐structural measures, such as elevation of at‐risk structures and planned relocation away from the coastal shoreline, especially in less urbanized areas. Solutions for urban areas, however, may require a mixed approach of structural and non‐structural solutions.
7. As water levels rise, sea walls, dikes and similar structures along the state’s coastline may limit public access to beaches as the publicly accessible intertidal zone is eliminated.
8. Existing maps of New York State’s coast that identify communities, habitats and infrastructure at greatest risk of flooding and erosion are inaccurate, out of date, not detailed enough for planning and regulatory purposes and fail to incorporate historic and projected sea level rise.
9. There are low‐cost, high‐benefit actions that can be taken now to reduce vulnerability along New York State’s coastline.
The recommendations were summarized as:
1. Adopt official projections of sea level rise and ensure continued and coordinated adaptation efforts.
2. Require state agencies responsible for the management and regulation of resources, infrastructure, and populations at risk from sea level rise to factor the current and anticipated impacts into all relevant aspects of decision making.*
3. Classify areas where significant risk of coastal flooding due to storms has been identified and implement risk reduction measures in those areas.*
4. Identify and classify areas of future impacts from coastal flooding from projected sea level rise and storms to reduce risk in those areas.*
5. Reduce vulnerability in coastal areas at risk from sea level rise and storms. Support increased reliance on non‐structural measures and natural protective features to reduce impacts from coastal hazards, where applicable.*
6. Develop maps and other tools required to assist local decision makers in preparing for and responding to sea level rise.
7. Amend New York State laws and change and adopt regulations and agency guidance documents to address sea level rise and prevent further loss of natural systems that reduce risk of coastal flooding.*
8. Provide financial support, guidance and tools for community‐based vulnerability assessments and ensure a high level of community representation and participation in official vulnerability assessments and post‐storm recovery, redevelopment and adaptation‐planning processes.
9. Undertake a comprehensive assessment of the public health risks associated with sea level rise, coastal hazards and climate change including compromised indoor air quality, drinking water impacts, post‐traumatic stress and other mental health problems, increases in disease vectors, impaired access to health care and loss of reliable access to food and medical supplies.
10. Raise public awareness of the adverse impacts of sea level rise and climate change and of the potential adaptive strategies.
11. Develop mechanisms to fund adaptation to sea level rise and climate change.
12. Fund research, monitoring and demonstration projects to improve understanding of key vulnerabilities of critical coastal ecosystems, infrastructure and communities from sea level rise.
13. Ensure continued and coordinated adaptation to sea level rise.
14. Seek federal funding, technical assistance and changes to federal programs to make them consistent with, or accommodating to, state policies, programs and adaptation measures related to sea level rise.
* Recommendation does not have the unanimous support of the Task Force.