Superstorm Sandy – A Climate Change Reality Check
Superstorm Sandy brought both devastation and a climate change reality check when she hit the Eastern Seaboard last night. Social media feeds, including Twitter and Facebook, are full of climate change discussions, yet climate change has been largely absent from our national dialogue – both in the media and in this year’s Presidential election season.
This point was highlighted today in a Washington Post piece. In it, reporter Brad Plumer writes:
- [Climate change] didn’t come up once in the three presidential debates. President Obama later said he was “surprised” by the omission, though we’re not aware of any rules that prevented him from bringing up the topic himself.
- In a major shift from 2008, the Republican party platform no longer even mentions climate change — except to criticize the Pentagon for “elevat[ing] ‘climate change’ to the level of a ‘severe threat’ equivalent to foreign aggression.”
- Even the Democratic party platform is quieter about global warming than it was last time around, although there’s at least some discussion.
Sandy was not even a hurricane, at least not according to meteorologists. It was, in fact, comprised of three distinct systems coming into contact with one another – one from the Caribbean, a second from the Arctic, and a third from the West. Three air masses colliding at the same time is unprecedented. The energy of the storm was fed by these three jet streams, creating an 800-mile wide storm – the largest one ever recorded. It seems to be so new, in fact, that computer simulations couldn’t quite handle the challenges associated with modeling all three air masses at the same time.
Or, perhaps, said another way: Things have changed.
New reports show a warming of both the Artic and the Caribbean, which fueled Sandy’s surge of the East Coast. Climate scientists have been predicting the increasing frequency of extreme weather and Hurricane Sandy is proof of this. So where is the climate change angle, media?
I wrote an op-ed for the Spotlight after Hurricane Irene hit New York City in October, 2011. In it I called for new strategies to build resiliency into the energy infrastructure of the tri-state region in order to prepare for power outages due to extreme weather events.Safeguarding the country’s coastline against future extreme weather is both a national security and economic competitiveness imperative.
Power outages have an impact beyond being an inconvenience. They directly impact the ability for business to function. A look at the United States’ economic powerhouse – New York City – gives us a snapshot of the economic impact of the storm we might be facing as the weeks unfold. With the Stock Exchange closed for two days, the transit system closed for an undetermined amount of time (possibly days or even weeks), and expected power outages for 3-10 days in some parts of New York City and the tri-state region, the economic impact of the storm will be enormous.
Initial numbers say that New York City’s economic loss could be upwards of $7 billion. National estimates are putting the number between $10-20 billion dollars for the country. We have to consider not only the lost economic revenue from closing the Stock Exchange and businesses, but also the cost to cleanup and rebuild. In addition, there will be the long-term loss for communities like Atlantic City, which depend almost exclusively on tourism dollars.
The seas are rising, storms are worsening, and former worst-case scenarios for rising waters need to be recalculated. For example, ConEdison’s worst-case scenario for the water level at their 14th street substation (which exploded) was 12.6 feet yet the water came in higher than 13.5 feet, far exceeding their top predictions.
The good news is that, as the climate changes, there are measures we can put in place to help our cities change with it.
There are numerous climate adaptation strategies to cope and prepare for storm surges and flooding. Much of Europe, and parts of the United States such as Portland and Seattle, have already implemented many of these strategies. SPUR, a policy and planning organization in the San Francisco Bay Area, wrote a great piece in December 2009 entitled “Strategies for Managing Sea Level Rise” which we can also extrapolate for cases like Superstorm Sandy. I’ve summarized some of the climate adaptation strategies in SPUR’s article which cities and regions can implement and must become a more central part of the national dialogue:
- Tidal barriers – a large dam, gate or lock that allows for managed flow of water during a storm surge. London has a Thames barrier to protect itself and the Maeslant barrier protects Rotterdam.
- Coastal armoring – seawalls and bulkheads protect the shore from water and/or enlarging sand dunes. Other examples are offshore beakwaters, double dikes (an interior leveee and a higher exterior levee a few hundred meters apart), and super levees which are so large they can accommodate development on top of it. Japan is building super-levees now.
- Raising buildings or land – elevating existing land or buildings such as airports, roads and railways that are subject to flooding to the base flood elevation of the area.
- Floating buildings – houseboats and and other floatable buildings are able to rise and fall with changing tides and sea levels.
- Floodable developments – buildings are designed to resist damage and water retention areas are built to rainfall and ocean surges. Examples include: rain gardens, trees, constructed wetlands, green roofs, permeable pavement, swales and contoured ground. Large underground parking garages in Europe are built to hold water instead of cars during peak floods.
- Restoring and rebuilding wetlands – wetlands provide a natural protective barrier that absorb floods and slow the flow of water and storm surges.
- Relocating development – removing settlement from shorelines so water can flood inland without impacting buildings.
Safeguarding the country’s coastline against future extreme weather is both a national security and economic competitiveness imperative. Federal, state and local government cannot wait any longer in implementing climate adaptation strategies. It is now time to speed up the efforts of this task force and invest in the resources needed to prepare the country for increasing climate threats. The same goes for local and state governments.
It’s time to draw a harder line because Superstorm Sandy may have been just one of many superstorms.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
Data concerns are not going away. Data sharing and open data initiatives will likely become even more important as the transportation industry grows more interdependent among citizens, public agencies, cities, and private companies. In an internal context, de-identification of data allows data to be shared across an organization, allowing all users to access insights, and a common picture of demand and service performance across the network. This allows marketing, planners, and operations teams within transit agencies to access the same secure data when doing short term and long term planning. This also enables data sharing between agencies and transit operators which have adjacent service areas, and allows them to optimize timetables and typical transfer points. In an external context, de-identification allows for safe data sharing across different public, private, and community stakeholders, and lays the foundation for collaboration, interoperability, and common understanding, while putting privacy first.
I spoke last week with Krishna Desai from Cubic Transportation, and we discussed three big problems facing transportation, and the ways that Cubic is approaching these challenges:
1) If (or when) more workers return to traditional on-location jobs, but feel a lingering distrust of crowded spaces, people who can afford it may opt for private cars instead of using public transit for their commute. This will create a massive influx of cars on roads that were already crowded, and more financial woes for transit agencies already dealing with budget shortfalls. Krishna told me about a suite of optimization tools Cubic is deploying in places like Mexico and San Francisco to make public transit more efficient, more transparent, and, overall, more attractive to riders.
2) For the time being, though, we’re dealing with the opposite problem. How can transit agencies find ways to influence user behavior in a way that complies with social distancing and capacity requirements? How can you incentivize riders to wait for the next bus? (In a way that doesn’t alienate them forever – see #1). Cubic has deployed a loyalty/advertising program in Miami-Dade County that was originally intended to increase ridership, but is now being used to help control crowding and social distancing on transit.
3) Transportation infrastructure, in generally, was not built to accomodate 6-feet of separation between riders – or between workers. Little things like, for example, opening gates, requires workers to be closer than 6-feet to riders, and there are examples like that throughout every transit hub. Technology can help, but creating and implementing software/hardware solutions quickly and efficiently requires experience with innovation, deployment, maintenance and more. Cubic has a program called Project Rebound that shows the possibilities.
Advanced Urban Visioning offers a powerful tool for regions that are serious about achieving a major transformation in their sustainability and resilience. By clarifying what optimal transportation networks look like for a region, it can give planners and the public a better idea of what is possible. It inverts the traditional order of planning, ensuring that each mode can make the greatest possible contribution toward achieving future goals.
Advanced Urban Visioning doesn’t conflict with government-required planning processes; it precedes them. For example, the AUV process may identify the need for specialized infrastructure in a corridor, while the Alternatives Analysis process can now be used to determine the time-frame where such infrastructure becomes necessary given its role in a network.