The Department of Defense is expected to scale down its fleet of gas-guzzling Humvees.
Image: Flickr/United States Marine Corps Official Page
This year, the Commerce Department will investigate the feasibility of a bicycle share program. The Agriculture Department's Risk Management Agency will redraw planting zone maps for the purposes of insuring nursery-grown plants. And the Department of Defense will scale down its fleet of gas-guzzling Humvees.
These are all examples of steps federal agencies will take in 2013 in an effort to deal with the risks of future climate change. The Obama administration released its first climate change adaptation plans Thursday, as part of the annual sustainability reports.
"It's an expression of the realization that the impacts of climate change aren't something that are going to happen way, way in the future," said Joe Casola, staff scientist and program director of science and impacts at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. "They're happening now, and in some ways, agencies' missions are put at risk by the threats of climate change, and they need to take action and mainstream considerations of climate into a lot of their decisionmaking."
This is the third year the agencies have released the reports, a review of sustainability accomplishments and a guide for goals. In 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, which set targets for cutting waste and pollution from the administration's operations and required agencies to complete these reports.
"The Federal Government is seeing the results of three years of effort in the form of reduced utility bills, more efficient operations, and less waste and pollution," said Nancy Sutley, chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, in a statement Thursday. "Agencies are demonstrating significant progress on sustainability initiatives that are good for American taxpayers and good for American communities."
Many of the plans also lay the groundwork for actions that will cut not only pollution but costs in the face of the rising price tag of climate change.
"USDA's costs for administering services such as disaster assistance, crop insurance, conservation and energy programs, and technical assistance are likely to increase as a result of climate change," said the $145-billion-a-year agency in its report. "Severe weather and other climate-related events such as associated excess moisture, drought, pest infestations, and heat stress place pressure on the capacity of agencies to meet demands."
This year's sustainability plans will also include fleet management plans and bio-based purchasing strategies. President Obama told agencies to buy more bio-based products in a presidential memorandum last year.
U.S. EPA
U.S. EPA, the agency responsible for regulating environmental health and safety, gave examples of needs that will arise as climate change encroaches on the agency's ability to perform. These include better maps of precipitation patterns to plan for long-term water infrastructure; measurements of extreme weather impacts on EPA's disaster response planning; understanding how strange weather can wear down contaminated areas and solid waste facilities; and predicting effects of climate change on energy efficiency programs, as energy supply and demand fluctuate.
EPA's goals in the plan include taking action to mitigate climate change and retain air quality, protecting the nation's waters and reducing community exposure to contaminants by cleaning up communities.
USDA
USDA's oversight occurs over one of the widest spans in the administration and includes rural communities, forests, biotechnology, nutrition, water use and agricultural trade.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentThe Department of Energy really needs to plan for extreme droughts imparing electricity production at nuclear and coal plants. Whether inlet temperatures are too high or river levels too low, changing water availability will start to throttle a lot of thermal power plant output and nuclear / coal power especially. Sea level rise and more frequent / intense storms threaten power plants that are located near the ocean as well. If we expect these plants to run for 40 - 80 years, and especially considering what could happen in a Fukushima-style disaster, we need to plan adequately for the drastically different climate humans are bringing about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the cold winter here (it hits minus 20), our family hunkers down in our humble apartment. We have the thermostat turned down to 18 degrees C. For every one degree higher, we have to pay $50 more, we've found. Some neighbors keep their heat at a balmy 23, and have to pay $400 a month or more for heating. Then, we seal the windows, put curtains over the doorways, clip them shut with clothespins, and do everything in our power to minimize the heating bill. That's because we're a family and we're accountable for our own expenses, i.e. our own CO2 footprint, if you want to look at it that way. Big institutions and the government can waste a lot, because nobody feels personally or particularly responsible. The bottom line is, when you have to personally shell out for the energy and resources you waste, you'll be more motivated to tighten your belt. We also don't go globetrotting as much as before, because... well, it's just too doggone expensive! See?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter late, than never.........now if he'll just okay the XL pipeline...........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo what end? Release 1 TRILLION TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere, giving us a "game over" as far as the climate is concerned, just so oil companies can make more profits exporting refined fuels to developing countries? Yeah, whatta deal!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEurope, especially Britain, will face catastrophe. Their plans are centered on preventing emissions, and no money is left to adapt to warming caused by other nations (98% of emissions) and nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe he is just speaking about the cost of energy not necessarily a carbon tax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you learn a bit more you will note that there is no scientific consensus that warming will result in net harms to the world or the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf someone believes that the actions promoted by SA and the current US government will have any impact on the climate you should go to the doctor and get medications.
Agreed rodestar99. This should just be business as normal... where are the real initiatives that can make a difference? Carbon sequestration? algae energy & oxygen producing vats? Come on... This will do nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhen do we finally just say “no more, How can we read the relentless and convincing news from scientists about climate change, and then turn to the financial pages and read arguments to accelerate investment in old-style technologies, fossil fuels, and land developments along coasts that ignore climate factors?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGAWD...how many times do I have to repost this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels...The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
1.The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2."There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points..."
Interesting. SCIAM editors are censoring posts that they don't agree with again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how posts that spew the Administrations climate manifesto are preserved.
Funny how posts that don't have a shred of scientific evidence to back them up and are merely ad hominem / political attacks are edited out of a website called SCIENTIFIC American. How in the world does that work?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin is lying; His claim is a ruse. Sisko is a joke and a troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlad to see the US Administration is again trying to take some action on climate change. However I suspect they will be thwarted again by the vested interests and other nutters in congress. Untill it hurts those with real power we shall see little done....sad but true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this