Departments within the agency are also taking on their own specific adaptation strategies. Part of the Federal Aviation Administration's focus, for instance, is on accessing better weather data through its NextGen program.
Energy
The Energy Department launched a study last year to identify the impacts of climate change on the U.S. energy sector and where the agency could support resiliency efforts. Over the course of this fiscal year, it will continue to update all appropriate planning documents to address climate change adaptation and build on existing research related to adaptation strategies.
NOAA
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a subset of the Commerce Department, will create a climate adaptation toolkit for the Coral Triangle, the area of endangered coral ecosystems around the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The toolkit will offer guidance for local governments on outreach, education, measuring vulnerability and developing early action plans.
NOAA will also continue to monitor sea level change, track fish populations, prepare regional climate outlooks and train coastal communities to adapt to sea level rise.
60-day comment period to come
For many agencies, the integration of climate change adaptation measures is far from new. Since Obama's first term, sustainability has been in the background of many agencies' work.
But publishing a plan gives cohesion to bigger agencies like Interior and USDA whose climate change goals may have been scattered across bureaus and agencies, said Bill Hohenstein, director of the climate change program office at USDA.
"With an agency like USDA with widely varied responsibilities ... it's important to look at an issue like climate change comprehensively," he said.
In the 60-day comment period that follows, Hohenstein expects to hear from the various people who work with USDA -- farmers, rural residents, industry workers and business owners -- who are curious about how to manage climate risks.
In drafting these climate plans, the agencies are not doing more than what is required of them, said C2ES's Casola.
"But it's a nice step," he said. "The executive branch [is] making a commitment to becoming more energy-efficient, more water-efficient, and trying to address climate change by reducing emissions and by managing risks from impacts."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
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