Dear Adaptation Mavens,

I don’t mean to gloat, but I’m just thrilled with the recent election results in the United States and rejection of climate change legislation in Canada. At last we’re going to get some fiscal responsibility back into our lives, along with a much-needed dose or reality. No more of these climate change zombies screaming that “the sky is falling” and claiming that we have to spend heaps of money to prepare for something that isn’t even real. The liberal elite may have been willing to shell out billions of dollars for climate adaptation, but the conservatives know a load of bunk when they see it. Why are the two of you still writing this silly column when it’s clear that the liberal agenda is failing?

Having A Heck of A Holiday

Dear HAHAH,

Shocking as this may be to hear, the field of climate change adaptation isn’t just a bunch of tree-huggers trying to bilk hard-working taxpayers for money to continue with their bizarre liberal activities. Military strategists, municipal planners corporate C.E.O.s, and conservative legislators have all considered the possible effect of changing climatic conditions on their work not because they want to honor Mother Earth or anything like that, but because they want to make sure they’re doing their job well. That means not ignoring a potentially important reality just because some people try to paint it as a liberal or environmentalist issue. No less a conservative than Republican Joe Barton of Texas, who thinks the climate is changing “for natural variation reasons” rather than anything having to do with human activity, stated: “It’s inevitable that humanity will adapt to global warming…The longer we postpone finding ways to do it successfully, the more expensive and unpalatable the adjustment will become." While the Mavens may not agree with the Honorable Mr. Barton about the human contribution to climate change, we certainly see adaptation as an issue of fiscal responsibility.

CongressmanJoeBarton.jpg

The issue of fiscal responsibility and adapting to climate change is perhaps clearest when it comes to infrastructure. Infrastructure projects tend to have minimum criteria they have to meet—culverts must be large enough to handle the highest flow expected over some period of time; buildings must withstand a designated strength of storm or earthquake; coastal structures must be located a minimum distance from the high tide line. The exact standards may vary—almost half the dikes in the Netherlands are built to withstand the biggest storm expected over a 10,000-year period (called a 10,000-year storm), while levees in New Orleans are build to handle just a 100-year storm—but whatever the standards, you want to know you’re using the right numbers when you evaluate infrastructure design and placement. And whatever you may think about the causes, it’s clear that in many places sea level is rising, storm size and possibly frequency are growing, wave height is changing, and more. If a coastal bridge is expected to last 100 years, should you calculate the parameters based on past water levels, or on the water levels you know the bridge will experience over its lifetime? Ask the folks in Alexandria, Egypt, whose coastal highway, completed in 2006, is likely to be under water within just a decade or two.

Alexandria highway.png

As an experiment to see if anyone is actually reading the advice column, the Mavens would like to offer a coupon for a free pint of ice cream to the first five people who post a comment about this month's column.

Another economic issue related to climate adaptation is up-front vs. the longer-term costs. While in some cases it may be more expensive initially to put in more robust infrastructure, the accumulated costs (initial cost plus ongoing costs associated with maintenance, repair, modification, or replacement) often tip the other way in a just a few decades. As discussed in last month’s column, planners in the Federated States of Micronesia calculated that a “climate-proofed” road (one designed for future rather than past rainfall levels) would more than pay for itself in just 15 years. While politicians often think of time in terms of electoral cycles, true fiscal responsibility requires a longer term view.  Just look at what it’ll take to shrink the U.S. budget deficit!

One thing that drives the Mavens particularly batty is hearing folks talk about how much adaptation will cost and how we can’t afford it. While some adaptation actions do cost more, that’s not always the case.

• Water: Many cities have discovered that promoting permeable pavement, rain gardens, and other low-impact development strategies is a cheaper way to reduce combined sewer overflows than building new sewage treatment plants or retrofitting the sewer system to handle higher flows, and this will likely be more true in areas where bigger rainstorms are expected.
• Energy: Many energy companies are subsidizing a lot of energy savings activities—home energy retrofits, efficient appliances, etc.—not because they care about Mother Earth (although they may) but because keeping demand within limits they can meet with their current sources is cheaper than building a new power plant.
• Planning: Why isn’t it required that houses and businesses not be built in flood plains? That may mean developers don’t get to make as much profit, but it saves homeowners from buying a doomed house and saves taxpayers from having to foot the disaster recovery bill (not to mention saving lives). Should taxpayers be supporting developer profits? That doesn’t seem fiscally prudent.

Bananas.png

Of course, if you think we shouldn’t be investing in infrastructure at all, or providing disaster relief assistance, or managing fisheries or timber harvests, or restoring degraded wildlands, then you’re right that we shouldn’t think about adaptation. But if you’re going to invest hard-earned taxpayer dollars (or your own money) into anything that’s affected by the weather or climate, by gum you ought to invest it wisely and responsibly. It doesn’t make any more sense to invest in expensive new housing in area likely to erode into the sea or get destroyed by wildfires within 50 years than it does to invest in an Alaskan banana farm, no matter what your political affiliation.

Economically yours,

The Adaptation Mavens