[dohboi]

New Government Report Warns of 'Cascading System Failures' Caused By Climate Change

From roads and bridges to power plants and gas pipelines, American infrastructure is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, according to a pair of government reports released Thursday.

The reports are technical documents supporting the National Climate Assessment, a major review compiled by 13 government agencies that the U.S. Global Change Research Program is expected to release in April. Scientists at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory put together the reports, which warn that climate-fueled storms, flooding and droughts could cause "cascading system failures" unless there are changes made to minimize those effects. Island Press has published the full-length version of the reports, which focus on energy and infrastructure more broadly...

Previous extreme weather events, which scientists warn may be exacerbated by climate change, offer insight to the types of failures they're talking about. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, the loss of electricity in the region meant that several major oil pipelines could not ship oil and gas for several days, and some refineries could not operate. Gas prices rose around the country.

Other scenarios include a major storm wiping out communications lines, a blackout that cuts power to sewage treatment or wastewater systems, and a weather event that damages a bridge or major highway. In the latter case, the damage would not only cost money to repair, but could cause traffic backups or delays in the shipment of goods, which could in turn have wider economic implications. As the report describes it:

A central theme of the report is that vulnerabilities and impacts are issues beyond physical infrastructures themselves. The concern is with the value of services provided by infrastructures, where the true consequences of impacts and disruptions involve not only the costs associated with the cleanup, repair, and/or replacement of affected infrastructures but also economic, social, and environmental effects as supply chains are disrupted, economic activities are suspended, and/or social well-being is threatened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/0 ... l?ir=Green

[Sixstrings]

Federal, and state gov hasn't spent enough on aging infrastructure in general. Stimulus funding helped that a bit, but still, all the old infrastructure is falling apart.

Climate change specific..

New Jersey towns want dams and such and have Dutch companies lined up to build them. I'm not sure how much of this can be done, all around the US. Would cost a fortune. I guess you just respond as needed, like after Katrina and then Sandy.

Its important to update building codes. If the northeast were to get more Sandy type storms going forward then those areas should have hurricane-state building codes.

[dohboi]

I think I am actually against a lot of infrastructure repair. Roads in particular should be mostly restricted and retired as they get old. We have to start planning intentionally for a post-car future.

Bike paths are another issue!

And a lot of the roads, railroads and other structures right along the coast near sea level need to be seen as what they are--lost causes. In fact we should be de-constructing much of this coastal infrastructure before the waves get the materials, both because of the value of the material, and to avoid further poluting the oceans (I'm thinking especially here of sea-side power plants, especially nukes).

[GHung]

Probably makes more sense to just disconnect from large-scale complex systems as much as possible and watch it all play out from the cheap seats. If I had a better suggestion, I would go for it, but we're beyond solutions, and mitigation seems more like triage at this point. Collective delusion is virtually complete, and by the time these things become undeniably self-evident to the masses, it'll be about who gets the blame rather than how we can fix these things.

It took 29 years to get a fairly important bridge near me replaced after it was condemned by the state and federal governments. Their 'temporary' solution was to make it one lane and divert heavy traffic on a 14 mile detour. And that was just a few million dollars. How do we get folks to agree to revamp and upgrade the infrastructure of an entire country when most are in complete denial? Just askin'...

[dohboi]

That's what I'm saying--mostly we don't.

Complex systems need to solve problems of complexity some other way that more complexity. It would be best to determine what elements of infrastructure are absolutely vital to minimal well being and defence, and fall back to making sure those are robust and resilient, with a planned scale back and closure of most others. But 'retreat' is never a politically palatable word.

[kiwichick]

as i've said before , a sensible country would be telling people who want to build in low lying areas/ or near the coast that they do so at their own risk

bring in laws stating that building at less than x metres above the current sea level after y date is at your own risk and the taxpayers/ government is not liable for any repairs or costs

i'd set it at land less than 1 metre above the current sea / river level and raise it 1 metre every 10 years

[dolanbaker]

No real need to do anything, insurance companies refusing to insure properties that at risk of flooding will act as a great deterrent to any future developments in such places.

Only the foolhardy build in such places now, that is certainly now the case in Ireland where there are huge areas that are uninsurable against flooding.

[dohboi]

db, being reasonably sane yourself and from a mostly reasonably sane country, you understandably underestimate the total insanity of the US system wrt insuring flood prone areas. Many of them are insured through the government, iirc. I believe that there have been recent attempts to change these idiotic practices, but they have been rolled back to the same old idiocy, last I heard.

Anyone who knows more about the ugly details of these policies, please feel free to pitch in.

[Loki]

Federally subsidized flood insurance has encouraged building in flood zones in the US for decades.

Since standard homeowners insurance doesn't cover flooding, it's important to have protection from the floods associated with hurricanes, tropical storms, heavy rains and other conditions that impact the U.S.

In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to help provide a means for property owners to financially protect themselves.

https://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/p ... erview.jsp

Since the NFIP was operating deeply in the red, Congress overhauled the program in 2012. This resulted in steep rate hikes for those who lived in flood zones. The butthurt was deep and highly vocal. Congress has responded, the law is in the process of being gutted.

Less than two years after Congress approved a landmark bill to overhaul the federal flood insurance program, lawmakers are poised to undo many of the changes after homeowners in flood-prone areas complained about sharp increases in premiums.

The House overwhelmingly passed a bill Tuesday night that would allow sellers to give their subsidized, below-market insurance rates to new buyers and lower the cap on how much flood insurance premiums can rise each year....

Both the House and Senate measures are aimed at weakening a 2012 law designed to wean hundreds of thousands of homeowners off subsidized flood insurance rates. The federal flood insurance program is now some $24 billion in the red, mostly because of huge losses from Sandy and Hurricane Katrina. The 2012 law required extensive updating of the flood maps used to set premiums.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-years-lat ... rance-law/

While I'm not exactly a market fundamentalist, this is certainly one of those cases where the market, if left to itself, would have discouraged excessive building in flood zones.