Lawmakers demand answers over FEMA’s omission of climate change from key document – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) says its decision to omit any mention of climate change from the agency’s strategic plan was essentially an oversight. Lawmakers want to know if any experts were consulted in drawing up the document itself, which is meant to guide the agency’s work over the next four years.

In a letter sent Wednesday to FEMA Director Brock Long, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) asked for more information regarding the agency’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan. FEMA has come under fire for the document, which did not contain a single reference to climate change despite the agency being responsible for overseeing recovery from hurricanes and wildfires, both of which are being affected more and more by rising temperatures.

“What statistical, scientific, or mathematical analyses were used in formulating the plan?” asked Ellison. “What scientific frameworks were used to identify the strategic goals and strategic objectives?”

“What individuals or offices within FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) were involved in the plan?” he continued, going on to inquire about White House involvement as well as any input from outside organizations or other individuals who may have consulted on the document.

“Did FEMA consult with any scientists or climate experts on the strategic plan?” he underscored.

The congressman requested a response to the queries by May 14.

Ellison’s Wednesday letter is the latest move in an ongoing back-and-forth. FEMA released its strategic plan on March 15 with no mention of climate change contained anywhere in the 37-page document. In an initial March 29 letter to FEMA, Ellison queried the agency tasked with coordinating disaster responses and mitigating such occurrences about why references to climate change did not appear in its strategic plan.

“Given the extraordinary devastation caused by natural disasters last year, I was surprised to find that FEMA removed all mentions of climate change from its 2018-2022 Strategic Plan,” Ellison wrote, going on to call the shift “inexplicable” in light of devastating catastrophes linked to climate change in 2017.

“It is puzzling to understand how FEMA could meet the emerging challenges of 21st century disasters while ignoring the mounting evidence of the link between climate change and weather events,” he continued.

FEMA director Long responded on April 12, essentially informing the congressman that the agency had simply forgotten to include any mention of the phenomenon, according to the Huffington Post.

“There was no decision, and no direction, to deliberately avoid or omit any particular term in the writing of the 2018-2022 Strategic Plan,” Long replied to Ellison.

Last year was the most expensive year on record for U.S. natural disasters since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) first began monitoring such trends in 1980. In 2017, natural disasters racked up $306 billion in costs across the country.

Virtually every region in the United States suffered some form of natural disaster in 2017, ranging from hailstorms and drought in the Midwest to blazing fires on the West Coast. A series of devastating hurricanes also left numerous islands and the Gulf Coast reeling last fall.

Texas is still recovering from Hurricane Harvey and the island of Puerto Rico has endured the longest blackout in U.S. history. Puerto Ricans still do not have full access to electricity or many basic necessities following Hurricane Maria, which struck the island as a Category 4 hurricane on September 20 last year.

Scientists and climate experts have said that hurricanes like Maria and Harvey were likely made worse by climate change. They say warming waters allowed for the storms to gain power quickly, exacerbating the damage they caused. An onslaught of pouring rain, flooding cities, and destroying dams, has also been directly linked to climate change.

“While hurricanes are a natural part of our climate system, recent research suggests that there has been an increase in intense hurricane activity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s,” wrote the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) last December. “In the future, there may not necessarily be more hurricanes, but there will likely be more intense hurricanes that carry higher wind speeds and more precipitation as a result of global warming.”

The White House has downplayed the extent of the damage caused by hurricanes last fall, especially with regards to Puerto Rico. Before a month had even passed after Hurricane Maria, President Trump emphasized that FEMA’s workers could not stay “forever” to help the island recover. Traditionally, parts of the United States far more equipped to deal with hurricanes than Puerto Rico have taken many years to rebound after hurricanes less powerful than Maria.

FEMA has already faced considerable criticism over its handling of post-disaster relief in Puerto Rico. Island residents have slammed FEMA over food shortages as well as back-and-forth over food and water aid, which the agency indicated it would end in January only to walk back that decision after public outcry. In March, Puerto Ricans rallied at FEMA headquarters demanding increased aid to the island and accountability over the agency’s failures.

But the agency does seem to have acknowledged that flooding is a national problem. In April, FEMA asked Congress to make national flood insurance more affordable, addressing a large income gap prevalent in communities vulnerable to flooding. Of those areas in Texas hardest hit by Harvey, upwards of 80 percent of residents lacked flood insurance.

FEMA’s flood insurance request to Congress notably contained no reference to climate change, going only so far as to note that disaster costs are expected to rise in coming years due to “rising natural hazard risk, decaying critical infrastructure, and economic pressures that limit investments in risk resilience.”

Climate change skepticism is a theme which runs deep throughout the Trump administration. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt has repeatedly denied and downplayed climate science, as has Sec. of the Interior Ryan Zinke. Newly-appointed Sec. of State Mike Pompeo has called the Paris climate agreement a “costly burden” and is himself a climate skeptic.

References to climate change have also disappeared from a number of government websites. A report released last month indicated that one EPA website has removed mentions of the phenomenon from its international priorities page. An EPA spokesperson told ThinkProgress at the time that the move was in keeping with “the current administration’s priorities” and that information from prior presidencies is still available through an archive on the website.

Congressional Democrats have also called on the Department of the Interior’s inspector general to look into whether the National Park Service (NPS) has violated its scientific integrity in removing mentions of climate change from a report on sea level rise. Zinke has claimed his department does not change so much as “a comma” in such reports.

[ad_2]

Source link

Trump climate policies will slam red states’ economic growth, major study finds – ThinkProgress

[ad_1]

Failure to stop business-as-usual global warming will deliver a severe economic blow to Southern states, a recent paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond finds.

Remarkably, this ground-breaking study, “Temperature and Growth” concludes that “under the business-as-usual scenario, the projected trends in rising temperatures could depress U.S. economic growth by up to a third.”

As the Wall Street Journal summed up the findings: “Climate Change May Deeply Wound Long-Term U.S. Growth.”

The study focused on the impact of high temperatures in productivity and found that rising temperatures have their biggest negative economic impact in the summer — but that it’s not just outdoor work like farming and construction that suffers. Using historical data, the authors showed that the finance, retail, and real estate sectors also get hit hard during the hottest summers.

The authors note that a scenario of low CO2 emissions would sharply reduce the economic harm. But such a scenario requires far more aggressive action than the world embraced in the Paris Climate Accord.

In reality, the Trump administration’s policies — to abandon the Paris climate deal while working to gut both domestic climate action and coastal adaptation programs — make the worst business-as-usual scenarios for climate change more likely while undermining any efforts to prepare for what’s coming.

Significantly, the researchers from the University of North Carolina, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank found that “the temperature effects are particularly strong in states with relatively higher summer temperatures, most of which are located in the South.”

The estimated summer impact “for the ten warmest states is about three times as large as their whole-country counterpart.” This means those ten states would be economically devastated in the coming decades.

The study ranks the states by average summer temperature. The top ten, in order, are: Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Arizona. Besides all being in the south, they all also voted for Trump.

We’ve long known the southern U.S. would be hit the hardest by climate change. Back in 2011, the nation’s top climate scientist, James Hansen (then at NASA), warned “If we stay on with business as usual, the southern U.S. will become almost uninhabitable.”

And earlier studies have found that rising temperatures would hit worker productivity hard in peak summer months globally. For instance, a study done in 2013 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that “heat-stress related labor capacity losses will double globally by 2050 with a warming climate.”

NOAA found that business-as-usual policies cut labor capacity in half during peak months by century’s end.

Individual labor capacity (%) during annual minimum (upper lines) and maximum (lower lines) heat stress months. RCP8.5 (red lines) is our current emissions path. CREDIT: NOAA

But the Richmond Fed study is the first to focus specifically on this country: It’s “the first in the literature to systematically document the pervasive effect of summer temperatures on the cross-section of industries in the U.S.”

So it’s the first study to document that Trump’s climate policies will hit the states that voted for him the hardest.

[ad_2]

Source link