Reed Galin

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released an interactive tool today that maps climate-related health risks across the country, including extreme heat, poor air quality, drought, flooding, and infectious diseases. The maps present a snapshot of current health vulnerabilities using recent data at the state and county levels.

“If we stay on our present course, we can expect these health vulnerabilities from climate change to accelerate” said NRDC Senior Scientist Kim Knowlton on a conference call with reporters. “We need to prepare for the worst in extreme events and the health vulnerabilities that will result.”

According to the NRDC, one of the main health impacts Californians are facing with climate change is air pollution.  A recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California finds that two-thirds of Californians already see air pollution as a big problem.  The NRDC tool asserts that 90% of Californians live in areas that violate air quality standards, and that climate change will worsen this by bringing smoggier and hotter days.

Highlighted in red are California counties experiencing several unhealthy ozone days. Map: NRDC

The tool illustrates that the Central Valley and Southern California regions already experience several more extreme heat days each year “than expected,” and asserts that more are on the way, according to climate projections. It also plots out the state’s water crunch, which some California cities are already grappling with.

In addition to laying out the challenge, the tool also links to recommendations for adapting to increased health risks from climate change, including a section on California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.

“We hope that our national maps will be used as a provocation for people to look and say, ‘Gee, we really need to dig in deeper,’” said Knowlton.

The tool’s data comes from a variety of sources, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the American Lung Association.

Craig Miller

Scientists and planners expect the Bay Area to face a host of water-related threats in the coming decades due to climate change, including flooding due to rising seas and summer water shortages due to warmer temperatures and a shrinking Sierra snowpack.

A new analysis released Tuesday from the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council catalogs these threats, for San Francisco, and for 11 other American cities, including Los Angeles. The study also looks at how prepared the cities are to adapt to these climate challenges. It finds, in general, that San Francisco is leading the way when it comes to being prepared.

“San Francisco is doing a good job laying the groundwork,” said Michelle Mehta, the lead author of the study. “The first step is coming up with really robust science-based plans, and so far San Francisco looks like they are doing a good job of that.”

She said San Francisco is particularly vulnerable to flooding due to rising seas, which, according to current projections, could rise 55 inches by the end of the century.

According to the report:

“High-sea-level events will cause flooding, erosion, damage to coastal structures and real estate, and salinity intrusion, particularly of low-lying land bordering San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Increased salinity in the Delta would degrade the quality and reliability of the fresh water supply used for drinking water and agricultural purposes. Shoreline development located in the area’s 100-year floodplain could be subject to a 100 percent chance of flooding by mid-century. Sea level rise also threatens critical infrastructure.  Approximately 235 hazardous material facilities would be at risk of a 100-year flood with a 55-inch rise in sea level.  Wastewater treatment facilities, 12 power plants, 1,900 miles of roads and highways, and two major airports also would be vulnerable with a 55-inch rise.

The report also finds San Francisco vulnerable to summer water shortages due to warmer temperatures that will cause more of the state’s precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow and will force the Sierra snowpack to melt earlier in the year, “altering traditional runoff patterns and complicating water supply management.”

The good news, said Mehta, in that San Francisco is paying attention.

“San Francisco is, I think, ahead of the curve compared to other cities in terms of their greenhouse gas mitigations and in terms of looking how to become more resilient to these impacts,” she said.

The report lists some of San Francisco’s climate change strategies and cites them as, “examples of the steps that communities across the country should consider.”  According to the report:

• In 2008, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors set new goals to reduce emissions by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2017, 40 percent by 2025, and 80 percent by 2050.
• In November 2010, the city formed an interagency task force to develop policies to address potential future flood associated with sea level rise.
• The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct an assessment of how climate change will impact the SFPUC system.
• The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), which is the state agency responsible for regulating development in the Bay Area, has proposed incorporating sea level rise scenarios in the permitting process, to develop a longterm strategy that considers local impacts of climate change, and to include policies that promote wetland protection, creation, enhancement and migration.

The report singles out Los Angeles as being particularly vulnerable to water-related climate change impacts, citing rising seas and increasing temperatures that will both likely affect water supply, and recommends that the city continue to work to reduce water consumption and supplement supply with reclaimed wastewater and stormwater.

CARB estimates that if every car in California had properly inflated tires, the state could save 75 million gallons of fuel and reduce emissions by 900 metric tons.

But despite those lofty numbers, the regulation likely won’t affect the lives of consumers very much at all.

“Essentially, the only difference they’ll see if that the technician is going to ask if they want their tires inflated,” said Dmitri Stanich, a CARB spokesman.

Service providers can charge for the service, and it’s likely that many will, said David McClune, executive director of the California Autobody Association.  (Auto body shops are exempt from the rule, unless they also offer mechanical services.)

“It could be very minimal,” said McClune.  “Some guys might just want to tack on a dollar, or three or four.  For others it’s just part of their normal procedure, but I wouldn’t think it would be that costly.”

Customers who don’t want to pay the extra dollars, however, have the right to decline the service. But according to the new rule, they must “affirm” that they have either had their tires checked in the last 30 days or will do so in the next seven.

But what if a customer declines the service, and then, say, forgets to check her tires in the coming days?  Will she get busted by the tire police?

Not likely, said Stanich.

“There will be no enforcement officers pulling people over and checking their tire pressure,” he said.

But according to Roland Hwang, the transportation program manager for the Natural Resources Defense Council, maintaining the proper tire pressure is the right thing to do, regardless of the regulation.

“There’s a surprising number of people with under inflated tires,” said Hwang. “And what does that mean?  That means you are consuming more fuel and paying more money at the pump. It also means there’s more air pollution being put in the air, and finally, it also means that you are risking your safety.”

But McClune said the new regulation creates more a paperwork, which isn’t sitting well with everyone.

“The additional administrative and compliance stuff is not real positive for some people,” he said.

And even though the rule went into effect on September 1st, McClune said many businesses still aren’t quite sure how to comply.

“At this point, there’s a lot of questions,” he said.

Stanich said there will be a 6-month grace period while CARB works to answer those questions. After that, the rule will be enforced as part of the agency’s existing auditing process.

As for what will happen to the new rule if Propostion 23 passes this November and AB32 is suspended?  Stanich said that at this point, the agency’s legal team doesn’t know.  If Prop. 23 passes, the regulation may be suspended along with the rest of the law, he said, or it’s possible that the agency would seek reinstate the rule on the grounds of air pollution prevention rather than greenhouse gas reductions.

See complete map of California, below. (Image: NRDC)

“This report is a real eye opener,” says Theo Spencer, senior advocate for the NRDC’s Climate Center. “It shows the toll climate change will take on the water resources in the U.S.”

Tetra Tech projects that climate change will exacerbate water problems in more than a third of counties across the US. In California, the outlook is worse. Forty-eight counties (83%) will be at risk by 2050, and 19 counties are on the critical list, those the report describes as under “extreme risk.” Only ten counties, mostly at the northern end of the state, were assigned to the low-risk category.

In the report, the authors have mapped the entire US according to drought risk, parsing data to the county level. The number of counties listed at greatest risk for water shortages is 14 times greater than in previous studies. Critical regions are the Great Plains and the Southwest. The report uses the most recent data from the US Department of Agriculture and other agencies, as well as the most recent climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to evaluate water withdrawal.

As the climate continues to warm, there will be a tighter squeeze on water supplies. These stresses include a shriveling Sierra snowpack and earlier spring runoff, which result in reduced water storage capacity. The report also projects precipitation to decrease in some parts of California by five inches per year, by 2050. Rising surface temperatures imply greater moisture loss in vegetation and on the ground surface.

In California alone, the counties at risk for water sustainability produce $21 billion in agricultural crops. “The state’s economy is at risk if we don’t change,” says Spencer. “If we keep acting the way we’re acting, we’ll be in serious trouble by 2050.”

The report warns that without any comprehensive climate policy, demand for freshwater will overtake available supply in this century.

California Counties and their future risk of water shortage. (Image: NRDC)

Having squeaked through the House by the thinnest of margins, the American Clean Energy and Security Act is facing a gantlet of Senate committees that will likely spend most of the summer dissecting the 1400-page beast.

Boxer’s Environmental and Public Woks Committee heard testimony today, with Finance and Foreign Relations scheduled to have their whack at it tomorrow. During the latter, expect to hear gruesome details about Europe’s experiment with cap & trade, which has been fraught with problems. Peter Fairley recently provided an excellent overview of those pitfalls in MIT’s Technology Review. Fairley writes that in its current form, the Waxman bill is destined to hit many of the same potholes.

During today’s morning session, members of the Energy committee heard from several cabinet-level officials, including Department of Energy Secretary Steve Chu, who fielded numerous questions on the role of nuclear power in the nation’s energy future. While California still has in place a legislated moratorium on new nuclear plants, Chu assured committee members that restarting the nuclear industry is a “very important factor” in the low-carbon future and that faces “no reluctance” from him.
Chu said his department is “pushing as hard as we can” to provide loan guarantees for new plant construction (most of which is planned for the southeastern U.S.). The former head of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab said that the U.S. has lost the lead on nuclear technology and “should get it back.”

(We’ll look at the prospects for that in a Climate Watch radio feature, scheduled to air on the August 24th broadcast of KQED’s Quest radio series.)

Committee Republicans repeated concerns about potential job losses and the danger of “carbon leakage,” wonk-speak for when production moves overseas to countries where it creates more greenhouse gas emissions than it would here.

As in the House floor debate, Republicans recalled a comment made by then-candidate Barack Obama to the San Francisco Chronicle in January of last year, that electricity rates would “necessarily skyrocket” under cap-and-trade. David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council countered that the act would also offer some savings; that households could see “up to $14 per month” in savings from transportation efficiencies.