CCPA Policy Note

Will Frankenstorm put climate change back on the political radar?

October 30th, 2012 · · 4 Comments · Climate change, Energy, Environment, resources & sustainability

In recent years the world has experienced a sequence of climate-change-related disasters. Hurricane Sandy comes on top of massive drought through the summer that has led to 40% loss of American corn and other grain crops, raging wildfires in the southeast US, tornados and derechos, etc – and that is just the US. Check out this extreme weather timeline for other global events of note in 2012 (and it is also worth noting that Sandy had a death toll in the Caribbean before landing in the US).

Based on previous disasters, we can anticipate that the economic losses from Hurricane Sandy will be in the tens of billions of dollars, and could even top $100 billion. Perhaps 40% of that will be covered by insurance. And of course there are personal and social costs from death, evacuations and loss of homes that are not counted in those numbers. The insurance industry tells us, and the science confirms, that multi-billion dollar damages from extreme weather events are becoming more common, in part because there are more people with more valuable assets, but also because a warmer climate has increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather.

Here is the grey-suited Insurance Bureau of Canada, in a report on extreme weather earlier this year:

There is increasing evidence around the world that the frequency and severity of severe weather is on the rise. In Canada, the recent spike in extreme weather-related events has resulted in social and economic consequences for individuals, governments, and home and business insurers around the country.  …

In Canada, on average, temperatures warmed by more than 1.3°C between 1948 and 2007, a rate of warming that was about twice the global average. The national average temperature for the year 2010 was 3.0°C above normal, which makes it the warmest year on record since nationwide records began in 1948. Canada has also become wetter during the past half century, with mean precipitation across the country increasing by about 12%. On average, Canada now experiences 20 more days of rain compared with the 1950s. These changes to the climate are likely responsible, at least in part, for the rising frequency and severity of extreme weather events in Canada, such as floods, storms and droughts, because warmer temperatures tend to produce more violent weather patterns. …

Insurers have seen first-hand the financial impacts of severe weather, as insured losses from natural catastrophes have ranged between $10B and $50B a year internationally over the past decade and in 2011 topped $100 B. In Canada, catastrophic events cost roughly $1.6B in 2011 and almost $1B in each of the two previous years. The majority of these insured losses were caused by extreme weather events, but Canada’s home and business insurers are also seeing an increase in claims resulting from smaller weather events that nevertheless result in significant property damage for consumers.

We now live in a world that is warmer: meaning real impacts in the here and now, not theorized consequences for polar bears many decades down the road. It’s like a baseball player on steroids, turning a routine fly-out at the warning track into a home run. To use another favoured analogy, climate change has “loaded the dice” towards more extreme events, whether they are hot and dry, or wet and stormy, whether they are season-long (like flooding in the UK) or discrete events.

Alas, the mainstream media have largely failed to connect the dots between climate change, extreme weather and fossil fuel industries. Last night on CTV news I even saw an ad for Shell and the oil sands come right after the latest update on the storm. In terms of actual reporting, there are some outlets like FOX News that seemingly fail to make the connection deliberately, but for the most part I think this is benign neglect. Still, breathless business stories about the latest oil and gas “play” almost never mention climate change. This failure to inform public debate that is astonishing, given that climate change is biggest overarching challenge of our times.

In light of that abrogation of responsible journalism, perhaps it is not surprising that climate change has disappeared as a substantive policy issue in North America. The heady days of Al Gore’sInconvenient Truth and the push towards climate action in places like BC (even as far as the US Congress) now seem a fading dream. The Onion wrapped it up nicely with its story, “Report: Global Warming Issue From 2 Or 3 Years Ago May Still Be Problem.”

It has been a puzzle to me why climate action is seen as such a dog politically. Sure, in coal, oil and gas we are up against the most profitable industries in the world – witness the Presidential debates where climate change did not even come up from the candidates or the moderators, and both Obama and Romney seemed to falling over each other in a bid to be the BFF of fossil fuel producers. In Canada, too, our political class has taken a position of ducking the issue whenever possible (with some rare exceptions at the municipal level). At best, Canadian politicians recognize the problem (rather than denying it) in the abstract but propose nothing of consequence to change course.

In contrast, openly speaking to the hard truths of climate change and offering solutions is a political opportunity that invokes frames of leadership, responsibility, innovation and the prospect of a new economic agenda. Investments in buildings, transportation and infrastructure for a low-carbon and more resilient economy are a better deal in terms of jobs and a decent future than environmentally-destructive tar sands pipelines and LNG plants.

In the wake of tragedy, perhaps change can come. Obviously, the immediate concern is getting through the storm then cleaning up and restoring basic services. After, we need to have an adult conversation about climate change and how we are going to deal with this enormous collective action problem. I’d love to see an all-party pact to agree on targets and timelines for GHG emission reductions, leaving the political debate to how we get there. The next round of international climate negotiations will occur in late-November to early-December in Doha, and there we will find out if Sandy has had any impact on putting climate action back on the table.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Tags:

    4 Comments so far ↓

    • Astro

      “It would NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.”
      This is a statement that will work for almost any project you can imagine. Since our economists and governments create money whenever it is advantageous to do so, projects come and go depending on how advantageous they are to the investors and their friends in government. WRT the tar sands, “It would NOT BE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE’ if a true costing were in place. The foulest smell I ever encountered was at a tailings pond in Fort MacMurray. When I visited the tar sands, one of the plants was closed due to environmental concerns and so we visited the other plant. An incredible amount of energy is required to remove the tar sands from the Earth, then it must be treated before it is shipped it to be worked on. Then it again is shipped or refined into oil to be used. A lot of energy is consumed and a lot of waste is released for this fuel.
      When I visited, it was thought that this was the bottom line for petroleum based fuel, i.e. there is no more after this. This is the end of the line. This was almost 30 years ago and here we are. Let’s get our sh*t together and start using none-fossil, renewable fuel sources now.

    • Roger Middleton

      The failure of climate change to register is not surprising.

      The current government is focussed on globalization in general, and growing foreign trade in raw materials, particularly oil and gas, in particular. Any “inconvenient truth” that might derail this government’s policy is ignored or repressed (see Bill C-38).

      As for the rest of us, we are being squeezed between poor income performance and rising costs, as are our provincial governments, who are equally captive of one of the tenets of globalization – compete internationally by lowering taxes. So governments are forced to cut back on services.

      Rigorous environmental protection and an aggressively tackling of the climate change problem will take massive funding and guess what – who can afford to pay more taxes?

      So, we are caught in a vicious circle, all our federal government’s making.

      So, how do we start to unravel this mess? I would recommend obtaining a copy of John Ralston’s most book on all of this “The Collapse of Globalism”.

      Then read Jeremy Rivkin “The Third Industrial Revolution”,

      and Amory B. Lovins “Reinventing Fire”.

      We need to brainstorm our way out of this mess and, these three books might a good place to start.

      Thinking outside the box is a good thing anyway and someone’s got to do it, but don’t look to our governments for leadership on this one either.

    • Jean R. Macintyre

      I am appalled by the advertisements, even on CBC, touting the wonderful economic advantages of the tar sands with not a syllable afterwards about the other side of the coin – what these same abominable tar sands are
      doing to the aboriginal peoples nearby and to our climate. – affecting us all. Life goes on as usual – when we should be in crisis mode.
      By the time we get to that stage, it may well be too late.

    • Jesus

      As the US and Canada cleans up from the 50 billion dollar storm, Canada plows ahead with its Tar Sands/Carbon intensive agenda to drag us out of the recession. If there is never EVER a correlation drawn between man’s carbon emmisions and climate then our planet is doomed. Once said to me, “Humans eh! the smartest, Stupidest animals on this planet”.