Three goals in its plan have a relationship with climate change. The first is to make the nation's public and private lands more resilient to climate change through land restoration and wildfire management. The second is to implement practices through Farm Service Agency, Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service programs that target watersheds that will be highly affected by climate change.
And the third is to promote agricultural production through biotechnology innovation, as crops become more susceptible to the stresses of high heat, drought or flooding.
Defense
In fiscal 2013, the Department of Defense's primary sustainability focus will be on reducing energy costs and improving energy security on its bases through efficiency measures and renewable energy projects, according to its most recent sustainability report.
DOD's main objective is to enhance military capability, but mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change can contribute to that goal, said Sharon Burke, assistant secretary of Defense for operational plans and programs.
"The effects of climate change -- droughts, floods, population migration, sea level rise, shifts in arable land -- the Department of Defense has a history of looking at those and how they are accelerants to instability, [and] how they affect our ability to operate," she said at a conference last week on renewable energy.
One of DOD's strategies is to "right-size" its nontactical vehicle fleet, which means using large, less fuel efficient vehicles only when necessary. The Army has been working steadily on this for three years. It has also eliminated more than 1,000 large SUVs used for passenger transport.
Interior
Like USDA, the Interior Department oversees public lands that have experienced devastating wildfires in past years. Interior also manages wildlife populations, relationships with American Indian and Native Alaskan tribal areas, research on geology and permitting for energy production -- both renewable and fossil fuel.
This marks the first time the agency has written a departmentwide climate change adaptation plan, said Jessica Kershaw, a spokeswoman for Interior.
"We are already making progress in implementing some of the actions," said Kershaw. The climate adaptation policy was incorporated in the Departmental Manual, which provides guidance to the department's 16 bureaus and offices.
The department will also address impacts that cut across different bureaus, update the Climate Science Center Strategic Plans and address the role of economics in adapting to climate change.
NASA
The nation's aeronautical agency has more than a dozen satellites in orbit to study the atmosphere, ice sheets, sea-level rise, deforestation and other indicators of climate change. NASA's strategy to manage climate change will include making data from climate experts readily available and holding workshops on adaptive planning. The agency will also seek to integrate practices in existing programs, rather than creating new "flavor of the month" initiatives.
NASA scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig co-chaired the New York City Panel on Climate Change, a group that was organized under the watch of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and in 2009 released a prophetic warning for the city, now apparent after the damage of Superstorm Sandy.
Transportation
To build resilience into the U.S. transportation system, the Transportation Department report calls for adjusting how transportation infrastructure is designed, built and operated, taking climate and weather-related risks into account. Since transportation infrastructure is designed to last for decades if not centuries, the agency's report writes that it is particularly important that infrastructure designers and operators evaluate the magnitude of climate-related stress over the entire lifetime of a particular project.
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