It’s estimated that there are more than 1 billion cars on the world’s roads. Of these, around 3 million are pure battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, according to the International Energy Agency. It forecasts that there may be 300-400 million EVs on the road by 2040. The Tesla Model Y is now the best-selling model in the world.
Deloitte predicts that EV sales will to grow from 2.5 million in 2020 to more than 31 million by 2030, accounting for approximately 32 percent of new car sales. Global plugin vehicle registrations were up 72 percent in November 2021 compared to November 2020. There were 721,000 registrations (or 11.5 percent share of the overall auto market), establishing a new global record for plugin electric vehicle (PEV) sales. Annual sales are doubling and tripling in many regions of the world.
One of the factors driving the solar powered side of PEV power is the surging price of oil and gasoline. Consumers around the world are feeling the pricing pressure and looking for alternatives. Solar panels are the energy-efficient and responsible answer.
To maximize the impact of the movement, we must charge these cars with solar power. Plugging these cars into coal-fired power plants isn’t progress. To travel 100 miles, the average EV requires the same amount of electricity as an average American home uses each day to run appliances, computers, lights, heat and air conditioning.
Since approximately 80 percent of car charging happens at home, residential solar power is part of the solution.
In 2019, data showed that 30–40 percent of EV drivers in many countries have rooftop solar. The group with the highest share was Tesla drivers in the UK (52 percent of EV drivers had rooftop solar). It’s estimated that the Solar Panel for Electric Vehicle & Chargers Market will grow at a compounded annual growth rate of 35 percent over the next five years. Charging stations will account for a significant portion of that growth.
According to the Open Charge Map, there are more than 150,000 charging stations at 75,000 locations around the world. The countries with the highest number of charging stations are:
United States 21,000
Germany 12,000
Netherlands 8,000
United Kingdom 7,000
Italy 4,000
In May 2021, a total of 609 PEV charging stations and 1,736 charging outlets were added in the U.S. alone. California, Massachusetts, and New York added the most charging stations that month, with 170, 80 and 59, respectively. It’s unknown how many of these charging stations are solar-powered.
Following record growth in 2020 and 2021, Wood Mackenzie predicts residential solar installations will grow 18 percent in 2022, but supply chain complications could hamper that growth.
Tesla is one of the leaders in solar-powered PEVs. The company offers a portable solar charger. It also offers complete residential solar systems that can support your PEV. SunPower Corporation is teaming up with Wallbox to power PEVs. The leading providers in the Global Solar Panel for Electric Vehicles and Chargers Market includes:
ABB
Beam Global
Blink
Charge Point
ChargedEv
Electrify America
Empower Solar
EVGO
Hanergy the Film Power
Lightyear One
MyEnergi Ltd.
Off-Grid Installer Limited
Ovo Energy Ltd.
Power-Sonic
Siemens
Sono Motors GmbH
Toyota Motor Corporation
Vivint Solar
Webasto
Wiocor Ltd.
Meanwhile, the top automakers are developing electric cars and trucks. Oil companies are scrambling to become the new providers of spark that powers them. The infrastructure is being developed now. The political, social and technological barriers to progress are going up in smoke. Now, the key is to power our vehicles with the sun.
Economic Activities Must Not Damage Public Health, Environment
Italy is known for its natural beauty and history, but environmentalists say it doesn’t do enough to protect natural wonders, such as the Venice Lagoon or its Mediterranean coastline. Parliament approved a new constitutional law to safeguard public health, environment, biodiversity and ecosystems. Enforcing the law will be the challenge.
Transport and Infrastructure Minister Enrico Giovannini called the new constitutional law a strong and symbolic act, but said the principles established now needed collective and individual actions consistent with those principles. Conservationists hope that parliament also will update existing legislation on environmental issues to avoid legal delays.
“Finally, environment protection has become a fundamental principle of the republic, which future legislation must be inspired by and past legislation adapted to,” said Italian WWF president Donatella Bianchi.
Italy’s ecosystems include the mountainous regions of the the Alps, temperate woodlands, coastal waters, freshwater river systems and shrub lands in the southern part of the country. Because Italy is a member of the European Union, its environmental policies largely fall under EU environmental legislation. They have failed to adequately protect people or the environment.
According to the World Health Organization, the air quality in Italy is unsafe.
More than 66,000 Italians die prematurely each year from air pollution, including particulates and ozone. Its air quality is the worst in the European Union. EU law on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe requires Member States to limit the exposure of citizens to these particles. Italy is among the countries of the European Union emitting the largest total amount of CO2.
Water contamination also is taking its toll. In 2013, more than 127,000 people living in the Veneto Region learned that their tap water was contaminated with perfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS)—also known as forever chemicals because of their persistence in the environment and their persistent threat to public health. The contamination affected groundwater, surface water and drinking water.
In 2014, the mayor of Rome banned the use of public water after tests found that the water supply was not safe for human consumption. Later that year, the European Commission put Italy on notice to reduce the environmental impact of the ILVA steel plant in Taranto, Europe’s largest iron and steel works. Tests found heavy contamination of the air, soil, surface and ground waters both at the ILVA site and near the city of Taranto. Fallout from the emissions of the steel plant caused the problem. The EU demanded its compliance with the Industrial Emissions Directive and other EU regulations.
The environmental issue that worries Italians the most is waste management. Other environmental concerns include air pollution, global warming and climate change.
As Italy recovers from the global economic collapse, it hopes to incorporate green initiatives into its economic policies, including: greening the tax code, expanding environment-related markets and green trade policies, promoting eco-innovation and investing in green technology.
Through its recent policies and financial incentives, Italy has made a major push toward embracing solar energy technology. However, support for fossil fuel consumption in Italy has risen sharply since 2012. The bulk of its fossil fuel tax subsidies focus on consumption, including diesel tax credits and tax breaks for energy use in agriculture in forestry and industry. The government also provides tax exemptions for gas and coal production. Hopefully, it’s offering the same sort of subsidy for solar energy production
Italy has impressive growth in the renewable energy sector. Italy has invested heavily in renewable energy, having surpassed its 2020 target already. The share of renewables in Italy’s energy mix has shown a distinct upward trend from 6 percent in 2007 to 15 percent in 2014. The country’s green energy incentive scheme has reduced the cost of photovoltaic systems by 72 percent.
While current economic factors will influence the progress of clean technology in Italy, the International Energy Agency’s made three primary recommendations. It said that Italy must:
Develop a national energy sector consistent with the modern energy market;
Identify and address deficiencies in its energy infrastructure; and
Fulfill its climate change responsibilities.
Under the country’s six-month term as President of the European Commission, Italy pushed for higher recycling targets and progress toward the complete elimination of EU landfills, green job growth and the tighter control of emissions from medium-sized combustion plants.
In 2019, Italy became the first country in the world to make sustainability and climate crisis compulsory subjects for schoolchildren. State schools now incorporate the UN’s 2030 agenda for sustainable development into several subjects. It devotes one hour a week to themes including global warming. Other subjects, including geography, mathematics and physics, are taught from the perspective of sustainability, announced Lorenzo Fioramonti, Italy’s education minister.
“The entire [education] ministry is being changed to make sustainability and climate the center of the education model,” said Fioramonti, a former economics professor who was criticized earlier this year for encouraging students to miss school to take part in climate protests.
“I want to make the Italian education system the first education system that puts the environment and society at the core of everything we learn in school.”
Fioramonti, a member of the pro-environment Five Star Movement, is the government’s most vocal supporter of green policies. He has taken heat for proposing taxes on airline tickets, plastic, and sugary foods to generate funds for education and welfare.
Wastewater Treatment Plants A Severe Risk To Public Health
Nearly one third of the hazardous chemical facilities in the United States are at risk from climate-driven floods, storms and wildfires, according to a new analysis by the Government Accountability Office.
The federal watchdog reports that more than 11,000 facilities across the nation, including factories, refineries, water treatment plants, have extremely hazardous chemicals in amounts that could harm people, property, or the environment if accidentally released. They found that more than 3,200 of them are located in places where they face damage from sea level rise, hurricane storm surge, wildfires or flooding from heavy rain.
Such events can and have released chemicals into surrounding communities. Climate change may make some natural hazards more frequent or intense, according to the Fourth National Climate Assessment.
Climate-driven storms have damaged numerous chemical plants, refineries and water treatment plants in recent years.
The most extreme examples have unfolded during hurricanes. In 2021, Hurricane Ida caused leaks and power outages at facilities from Louisiana to New Jersey. In 2020, Hurricane Laura forced tens of thousands of people near Lake Charles, La., to shelter in place after a local chemical plant was damaged and began leaking dangerous chlorine gas. And, in 2017, flooding from Hurricane Harvey caused massive sewage leaks from water treatment plants, and caused at least one chemical plant to catch fire and burn for days.
Flooding is by far the most widespread hazard, the report finds. Of the 3,219 facilities located in harm’s way, more than 2,400 of them are at high risk for flooding, according to flood maps produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And in some places the risk may be even higher than those maps suggest, because FEMA does not take into account long-term sea level rise or other types of climate-driven flooding.
Insufficient or out-of-date information about weather risks makes it more difficult for companies to prepare their facilities for the effects of climate change.
The facilities analyzed in the new report are located in all 50 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. They are concentrated in the industrial core of the country. Nearly 40 percent of facilities are located in the Midwest or Great Lakes regions, and about 30% are located in the 14 southern states between North Carolina and New Mexico.
Due to socio-economics and public policies, socially vulnerable people, including poor people, Indigenous people and Black people, are more likely to live near facilities that use hazardous chemicals. When floods release chemicals into the air, or a hurricane causes a fire to break out, the people living nearby are most likely to suffer from pollution exposure while they are also trying to cope with damage to their own homes.
“It’s a terrible nexus of burden and vulnerability,” says Ana Baptista, an environmental policy professor at the New School. “You have communities that are facing a whole host of burdens in terms of pollution exposure, and they may also have less means to evacuate in an emergency.”
The report suggests multiple ways that the EPA can protect people by requiring the companies that own these facilities to prepare for climate-driven weather.
Rivers dump approximately eight million metric tons of plastic into the world’s oceans each year. It’s killing entire ecosystems, including many endangered species.
Since one percent of the rivers around the world dump eighty percent of the plastic into our oceans, it makes sense to target the problem before the plastics and other garbage reach the ocean. While researchers and activists insist that preventing plastic pollution is the top priority, cleanup measures are part of the solution.
After watching garbage flow down a local river for years and after volunteering to cleanup the river, a Baltimore man jumped into action. John Kellett drew up some plans for a machine powered by a water wheel. He designed it to intercept trash at the mouth of Jones Falls, which is the main source of harbor pollution. He installed a prototype in 2008 and it was a success. By 2014, the technology was rebranded as Mr. Trash Wheel—a floating miracle that resembles a miniature riverboat.
Mr. Trash Wheel is a simple trash interceptor that is placed at the end of a river, stream or other outfall. It employs both solar and hydropower to pull hundreds of tons of trash out of the water each year. It’s an idea that demands replication in key rivers around the world.
Using containment booms, trash flowing down the river is funneled into Mr. Trash Wheel’s collection system. Two booms reach outward and under the surface of the water to capture trash. The booms funnel the garbage onto a conveyor belt that feeds a large dumpster. Once the dumpster fills, it is towed away and replaced. Ideally, the plastic gets recycled, but current sorting technologies are unable to separate the plastics from other trash. For now, the city incinerates the trash to create electricity.
“I don’t think of the Trash Wheel as a solution,” said John Kellett, inventor of Mr. Trash Wheel. “We are treating a symptom of the disease. It’s not a cure.”
Mr. Trash Wheel has spawned replicas around Baltimore—Professor Trash Wheel, Captain Trash Wheel, and Gwynnda the Good Wheel of the West. Similar models also are planned for Newport Beach, California and Managua, Nicaragua.
Professor Trash Wheel has been cleaning up Harris Creek since December 2016. Captain Trash Wheel has been cleaning up Masonville Cove since June 2018 and Gwynnda the Good Wheel of the West, the largest system so far, has been working hard at Gwynns Falls since June 2021.
Trasharella is coming soon to Newport Beach, California and Dona Rueda is scheduled to be the first venture into international waters—in Panama.
So far, the Mr. Trash family has collected 2,004 tons of trash. The most Mr. Trash Wheel has ever collected in a single day is 38,000 lbs. On a sunny day, the solar panels can produce 2,500 watts of electricity—enough to power a typical Maryland home.
San Diego Suing Chemical Companies To Safeguard Water Supplies
Thanks to a massive chemistry experiment that has gone horribly wrong, most people in the United States, and likely the world, have a harmful chemical in their bodies. It’s unknown how many people have been sickened and killed by one of the largest industrial crimes in history.
In an attempt to turn the tide, the City of San Diego is suing more than 20 companies over water contamination from a toxic chemical called PFAS. The lawsuit claims that 3M, DuPont, Raytheon and others made firefighting foam that contained PFAS and alleges the companies were aware of the toxic nature of the chemicals, but concealed the environmental and public health dangers.
These chemicals have leached into our soil and water, which means that food supplies have been contaminated. People are most likely exposed by consuming PFAS-contaminated water or food, using products made with PFAS, or breathing air contaminated with PFAS.
PFAS are a large, complex, and ever-expanding group of manufactured chemicals that are widely used to make everyday products and firefighting products. For example, PFAS keeps food from sticking to cookware, make clothes and carpets resistant to stains and water, and create firefighting foam that is more effective. PFAS are used in aerospace, automotive, construction, electronics, and military. A 2021 study tested 231 cosmetic products. More than half of those tested contained PFAS. PFAS may be listed on the ingredient list as PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), perfluorooctyl triethoxysilane, perfluorononyl dimethicone, perfluorodecalin, and perfluorohexane. In 2016, the FDA barred the use of certain types of PFAS, called long-chain PFAS, from food packaging. It was found to have toxic effects on animal and human health. Nothing like conducting product research on an unsuspecting public.
The problem is that PFAS molecules are composed of an indestructible chain of carbon and fluorine atoms. The carbon-fluorine bond is extremely strong, which means that these chemicals do not degrade in the environment or in our bodies. In fact, scientists are unable to estimate an environmental half-life for PFAS, which is the amount of time it takes 50 percent of the chemical to disappear. Because of this characteristic, PFAS are referred to as forever chemicals.
Since PFAS don’t break down, they accumulate in the tissue of humans, wildlife and livestock. PFAS causes cancer, liver, thyroid, and kidney disease. They weaken the immune system, alter the metabolism, and disrupt the reproductive system. They cause infertility, miscarriage and birth defects. They cause neurological disorders. It also can blacken the teeth of those exposed. Much more research is needed to fully understand the public health and ecological impacts.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found PFAS in the blood of 97 percent of Americans. PFAS also is commonly found in breast milk.
It’s safe to say that PFAS has contaminated most of the food and water supplies around the world. The contaminant also is taking its toll on fish, wildlife and livestock.
City Attorney Mara Elliott filed suit against more than 20 chemical companies for allegedly manufacturing toxic chemicals that have been detected in San Diego area water sources. The lawsuit claims that these chemical companies manufactured and concealed the toxic nature of firefighting foams that have contaminated drinking water supplies around San Diego for decades. It could be the first of thousands of related lawsuits around the world. These forever chemicals are also in Teflon, repellants and other products. More than 9,000 PFAS have been identified.
The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of California in San Diego on behalf of the People of California and the City of San Diego, seeks to force the companies to pay for the costs of cleanup since they profited from selling the products containing these dangerous chemicals. Fire-suppression foams, for example, used a class of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS also are used in products that repel oil and water. PFAS are called forever chemicals because this carbon-fluorine bond is incredibly strong, which makes PFAS impossible to break down in the natural environment and in our bodies. They remain highly toxic forever. For public health and the sake of entire ecosystems, those toxic chemicals must be removed from waters, soils, and other resources to contain the threat.
A single fire or training exercise can result in the discharge of thousands of gallons of PFAS foam, which leaches into the soil and groundwater. The residue gets carried away by surface water runoff, which contaminates streams, rivers, reservoirs and oceans. Of course, a toxic nightmare like this has likely taken a devastating toll on firefighters, not to mention those involved in the manufacture of these toxins. The movie Dark Waters with Mark Ruffalo does a thorough job of documenting the horrors of Dupont’s deceit. It also introduces us to the health effects.
The City has detected PFAS in certain drinking water supplies, storm water, wastewater, and other natural resources. It has taken initial steps to help prevent public exposure to PFAS. The cost to remove PFAS will be substantial and the task may be impossible.
“These polluters were interested primarily in profits and secrecy,” Elliott said. “This lawsuit will hold them accountable, restore the environment, and protect the health of today’s San Diegans and future generations. 3M, Dupont, and the others have known for decades that the PFAS that they developed, manufactured, and sold were toxic and that their intended use would contaminate the environment and jeopardize public health. We have documents showing that one of 3M’s chief scientists resigned in frustration over the company’s refusal to investigate the toxicity of PFAS, calling it the ‘most onerous pollutant since PCBs.’ ”
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, many PFAS chemicals break down slowly, if at all, which is why they are often called forever chemicals. Over time and exposure to certain levels of PFAS have been linked to health issues. Although these two compounds are no longer made in the United States, chemical manufacturers have replaced them with alternative PFAS, such as GenX, which has already been found in groundwater, rain and air in the United States.
“For years and years, we’ve known the military’s heavy use of PFAS-based firefighting foam has impacted service members, their families and surrounding communities,” said Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA).
The director of the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s National Center for Environmental Health called widespread contamination by PFAS chemicals one of the most important public health issues for the next several decades.
The lawsuit claims that the chemicals have been detected in wastewater from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant and South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. The lawsuit doesn’t seek damages on behalf of residents who have already been sickened and those who have died. It doesn’t seek medical monitoring for residents, former residents and visitors who drank the water, became sick. It doesn’t seek help for those who have already died. It doesn’t seek medical monitoring for thousands (probably millions) who could develop medical conditions in the future.
The human cost and the cost to pets, livestock, wildlife and sea creatures could bankrupt these companies, which is likely why this lawsuit isn’t going that direction, yet. As the movie Dark Waters revealed, scientists at DuPont referred to exposed humans as “receptors.”
Dark Waters is extremely accurate when compared to the true events, which makes it all the more upsetting. The script is based on the 2016 New York Times article “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare,” written by journalist Nathaniel Rich. That courageous lawyer is Robert Bilott, an American environmental attorney from Cincinnati, Ohio. Bilott is known for the lawsuits against DuPont on behalf of plaintiffs from West Virginia. Bilott has spent more than twenty years litigating hazardous dumping of the chemicals perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid.
In addition to the contaminated water, cities must rethink the logic of dumping sewage sludge on farms, ranches and other open spaces. It’s permanently contaminating the soil, groundwater and water runoff with PFAS and other toxins. Since plants absorb water and nutrients from the contaminated soil, crops are contaminated with PFAS, prions and others toxins found in biosolids. The U.S. alone dumps more than 100 million tons of this toxic, infectious waste on farms, forests, playgrounds, golf courses and beyond every year. The EPA no longer stands behind the risk assessment that once claimed that dumping sewage sludge on land is a safe practice. The practice should be banned. Safer alternatives exist. In fact, dumping biosolids on land instantly qualifies property as a Superfund site. Banks and insurance companies themselves should step up and demand reform before their assets and liabilities bankrupt them.
In ‘Fluoropolymers’ the unit that repeats over and over is a simple carbon atom with two fluorine atoms attached; PTFE (Teflon) for non-stick pans is based on fluoropolymers. The slightly more complex ‘Fluorinated side-chain polymers’ are used in textile finishes to give stain resistance and water repellent qualities.
Not all PFAS are the same. The very large polymer PFAS, such as PTFE or fluorinated side-chain polymers used on textiles, are often considered too big to be taken up by our bodies, and therefore unlikely to cause harm to humans. However, harmful non-polymer forms of PFAS are used in the production of PFAS polymers. These harmful forms can also be created as the polymers breakdown. Until recently, PFOA and PFOS were the most commonly used PFAS in production of these polymers. They are the focus of the vast majority of research into PFAS so far and they are the ones that are heavily restricted or banned due to proven impacts on the environment and human health. These are sometimes referred to as C8 PFAS, based on their chain length. In light of both initiatives and legal restrictions, there has been an increase in the use of C6 PFAS, some of which are restricted.
To limit dangerous PFAS exposure through contamination and overall use, the Environmental Protection agency is taking the following steps. Hopefully, it will go much further much faster:
Hold manufacturers or facilities that pollute water and soil sources accountable;
Protect vulnerable communities that are at risk for high PFAS exposure;
Spot potential problems PFAS can cause throughout its long life cycle;
Lower PFAS exposure and risk in the first place;
Continue research to understand the long-term harm for humans and the environment; and
Develop methods to test, measure, remove, and destroy PFAS.
To ensure truly sustainable use, the full chemical lifecycle of any product needs to be understood before it’s rolled out for mass production and widespread use. Additionally, a lack of evidence of harm does not constitute, and should not be considered as, evidence of safety. PFAS should have never seen the light of day.
Industrial Facilities, Contaminated Sites Face Flooding
According to a new report, more than 200 shoreline communities around Lake Michigan are at risk from high lake levels and strong storms that could impact industrial facilities and contaminated sites.
Climate change is fueling more extreme Lake Michigan Water levels, along with stronger winds and heavier storms. These conditions exacerbate erosion, beach loss, and damage along the shore. Shoreline communities around the lake have already spent $878 million in just the past two years repairing damages from extreme weather events. Expenses could exceed another $2 billion in the next five years.
Using elevation data prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, analysts identified twelve areas where high lake levels and strong storms could impact industrial facilities, contaminated sites, and communities along Lake Michigan. These maps visualize four flood levels from 584 to 589 feet above sea level. The maps provide a useful starting point for risk assessment, spreading awareness, and prioritizing cleanup.
Chicago’s shoreline communities and the built environment have taken a beating from high Lake Michigan water levels whipped up by high winds and waves.
Climate change is causing more extreme weather events and unprecedented swings in lake water levels. As Professor Drew Gronewold of the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability explained, Lake Michigan water levels shifted from a record low monthly average of 576 feet in 2013, to a record high of 582.2 feet in 2020.
While scientists expect global mean sea levels to rise somewhat consistently, the Great Lakes are expected to continue to both rise and fall, fueled by an accelerating “tug of war” between numerous factors. In some years, higher temperatures will increase evaporation resulting in lower lake levels. In many years, lower temperatures and broad ice cover, combined with high levels of precipitation, will cause much higher Lake Michigan waters levels for which the current built environment was not designed.
Residential buildings in Chicago’s north-side Rogers Park and south-side South Shore neighborhoods have been battered by water, wind and waves. Houses on the Chicago suburban North Shore, the Northwest Indiana shoreline, and Western Michigan’s lakeshore likewise have been battered. Beaches up and down the lakefront are being washed away and bluffs eroded. Wastewater treatment plants, toxic dredge dumps and other industrial facilities are vulnerable to damage, flooding and toxic release.
“In terms of climate change, the long-term signal for us in the Great Lakes is wetter and warmer,” Professor Gronewold said. “The practical reality is that we need to rethink the Great Lakes shoreline’s built environment in light of the more extreme water levels.”
Adapting to changing conditions and dealing with threats to the local environment and public health and safety will require fundamental policy shifts, and significant federal, state and local financial investments. Policymakers must include critical recommendations from affected communities. Possible action steps include:
Reassess infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities in light of higher-than-planned-for Lake Michigan water levels. Too many existing toxic sites – landfills, coal ash storage ponds, and industrial facilities – along the shoreline were built based on outdated water level estimates; they weren’t designed to withstand now-projected higher water levels and flooding. Given climate-related predictions of more extreme lake levels, cleaning up toxic sites is even more important. At a minimum, let’s not make existing problems worse. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed expanding the Confined Disposal Facility, a hazardous waste landfill on Chicago’s Southeast Side right along the Lake Michigan shoreline. Communities should likewise assess the impacts on marinas, water intake pipes and wildlife when water levels are low. Assuring that drinking water intake pipes are safe under both extremely high and low lake water levels is critical.
Update and redesign local land use planning and zoning standards based on today’s water level realities rather than yesterday’s news. Most communities’ planning, zoning and development laws and practices are outdated and based on historic Lake Michigan levels instead of the increasingly more extreme water levels.
Invest in nature-based solutions to strengthen shoreline resilience, including restoring wetlands to store water and reduce some pressure by absorbing overflow from Lake Michigan, while also providing more wildlife habitat. Potentially use nearby rivers and lakes to act as reservoirs for high lake water.
Consider new environmental engineering and water management approaches. Green infrastructure, such as permeable pavers, can allow water to directly enter the groundwater, rather than overwhelming city drainage systems, flooding streets and flowing into the lake. Policymakers should explore and reasonably use “all of the water management tools in the toolbox.”
Effectively deploy the recent influx of federal funds, including the additional $1 billion for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provides greatly increased funding to address wastewater and storm water threats, and investments in clean drinking water programs.
California has been adjusting to the new normal of drought across the American West for years. It’s also bracing for the most dangerous flood threat in modern history–a flood that could inundate major valleys with water flows hundreds of miles long and tens of miles across.
Motivated by one such flood that occurred in 1862, scientists investigated the phenomenon in 2010. They called it the ArkStorm scenario, reflecting the potential for an event of biblical proportions.
To account for the additional flood-worsening effects of climate change, scientists from UCLA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research have completed the first part of ArkStorm 2.0.
“In the future scenario, the storm sequence is bigger in almost every respect,” said Daniel Swain, UCLA climate scientist and co-author of the paper, which is published today in the journal Science Advances. “There’s more rain overall, more intense rainfall on an hourly basis and stronger wind.”
In total, the research projects that end-of-the-century storms will generate 200 percent to 400 percent more runoff in the Sierra Nevada Mountains due to increased precipitation and more precipitation falling as rain, not snow.
The researchers used a combination of new high-resolution weather modeling and existing climate models to compare two extreme scenarios: one that would occur about once per century in the recent historical climate and another in the projected climate of 2081-2100. Both would involve a long series of storms fueled by atmospheric rivers over the course of a month. The paper also simulated how the storms would affect parts of California at a local level.
“There are localized spots that get over 100 liquid-equivalent inches of water in the month,” Swain said, referring to the future scenario. “On 10,000-foot peaks, which are still somewhat below freezing even with warming, you get 20-foot-plus snow accumulations. But once you get down to South Lake Tahoe level and lower in elevation, it’s all rain. There would be much more runoff.”
The increased runoff could lead to devastating landslides and debris flows — particularly in hilly areas burned by wildfires.
The paper, which was co-authored by climate scientist Xingying Huang, found that historical climate change has already doubled the likelihood of such an extreme storm scenario, building on previous UCLA research showing increases in extreme precipitation events and more common major floods in California. The study also found that further large increases in “megastorm” risk are likely with each additional degree of global warming this century.
“Modeling extreme weather behavior is crucial to helping all communities understand flood risk even during periods of drought like the one we’re experiencing right now,” said Karla Nemeth, director of the Califiornia Department of Water Resources, which provided funding for the study. “The department will use this report to identify the risks, seek resources, support the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, and help educate all Californians so we can understand the risk of flooding in our communities and be prepared.”
With drought and wildfire getting so much attention, Californians may have lost sight of extreme flooding, Swain said. “There is potential for bad wildfires every year in California, but a lot of years go by when there’s no major flood news. People forget about it.”
The state has experienced major floods over the years, but nothing on the scale of the Great Flood of 1862. During that disaster — when no flood management infrastructure was in place — floodwaters stretched up to 300 miles long and as wide as 60 miles across in California’s Central Valley. The state’s population then was about 500,000, compared to nearly 40 million today. Were a similar event to happen again, parts of cities such as Sacramento,
Stockton, Fresno and Los Angeles would be under water even with today’s extensive collection of reservoirs, levees and bypasses. It is estimated that it would be a $1 trillion disaster, larger than any in world history.
Though no flood so large has happened since, climate modeling and the paleoclimate record — including river sediment deposits dating back thousands of years — shows that it typically happened every 100 to 200 years in the pre-climate change era.
The ArkStorm flood is also known as “the Other Big One” after the nickname of an expected major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault. But, unlike an earthquake, the ArkStorm would lead to catastrophe across a much larger area.
“Every major population center in California would get hit at once — probably parts of Nevada and other adjacent states, too,” Swain said.
The effects on infrastructure would complicate relief efforts, with major interstate freeways such as the I-5 and I-80 likely shut down for weeks or months, Swain said. Economic and supply chain effects would be felt globally.
The first ArkStorm exercise concluded that it would not be possible to evacuate the 5 to 10 million people who would be displaced by flood waters, even with weeks of notice from meteorologists and climatologists. While it helped inform flood planning in some regions, the exercise was limited due to lack of organized resources and funding.
California has already seen increases in climate-driven drought and record-breaking wildfires, Swain said. With climate change-amplified flooding, ArkStorm 2.0 aims to get ahead of the curve.
Further research and preparations to respond to such a scenario — including advanced flood simulations supported by the California Department of Water Resources — are planned to follow, Swain said. This will include collaborations with partner agencies including the California Office of Emergency Services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Researchers next hope to map out where flooding could be worst and inform statewide plans to mitigate it. That could mean letting water out of reservoirs preemptively, allowing water to inundate dedicated floodplains and diverting water away from population centers in other ways.
By John Podesta, Founder and Director, The Center For American Progress
In 2018, the World Bank estimated that three regions (Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia) will generate 143 million more climate migrants by 2050. In 2017, 68.5 million people were forcibly displaced, more than at any point in human history. While it is difficult to estimate, approximately one-third of these (22.5 million to 24 million people) were forced to move by “sudden onset” weather events—flooding, forest fires after droughts, and intensified storms. While the remaining two-thirds of displacements are the results of other humanitarian crises, it is becoming obvious that climate change is contributing to so-called slow onset events such as desertification, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, air pollution, rain pattern shifts and loss of biodiversity. This deterioration will exacerbate many humanitarian crises and may lead to more people being on the move.
Multilateral institutions, development agencies, and international law must do far more to thoroughly examine the challenges of climate change (early efforts, like the World Bank’s 2010 World Development Report on climate change, had little uptake at a time when few thought a climate crisis was around the corner). Moreover, neither a multilateral strategy nor a legal framework exist to account for climate change as a driver of migration. Whether in terms of limited access to clean water, food scarcity, agricultural degradation, or violent conflict, climate change will intensify these challenges and be a significant push factor in human migration patterns.
There are instances of climate change as the sole factor in migration, climate change is widely recognized as a contributing and exacerbating factor in migration and in conflict.
In South Asia, increasing temperatures, sea level rise, more frequent cyclones, flooding of river systems fed by melting glaciers, and other extreme weather events are exacerbating current internal and international migration patterns. Additionally, rapid economic growth and urbanization are accelerating and magnifying the impact and drivers of climate change—the demand for energy is expected to grow 66 percent by 2040.
Compounding this, many of the expanding urban areas are located in low-lying coastal areas, already threatened by sea level rise. The confluence of these factors leads the World Bank to predict that the collective South Asian economy (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka) will lose 1.8 percent of its annual GDP due to climate change by 2050. The New York Times reports that the living conditions of 800 million people could seriously diminish. Diminishing living conditions on this scale and intensity will prompt mass migration—possibly at an unprecedented level.
Northwest Africa is facing rising sea levels, drought, and desertification. These conditions will only add to the already substantial number of seasonal migrants and put added strain on the country of origin, as well as on destination countries and the routes migrants travel. The destabilizing effects of climate change should be of great concern to all those who seek security and stability in the region. Climate and security experts often cite the impacts of the extreme drought in Syria that preceded the 2011 civil war. The security community also highlights the connection between climate change and terrorism—for instance, the decline of agricultural and pastoral livelihoods has been linked to the effectiveness of financial recruiting strategies by al-Qaida.
The intersection of climate change and migration requires new, nimble, and comprehensive solutions to the multidimensional challenges it creates. Accordingly, the signatories to the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change requested that the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change (WIM) develop recommendations for addressing people displaced by climate change. Similarly, The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (adopted by 164 countries—not including the U.S.—in Marrakech in December 2018) called on countries to make plans to prevent the need for climate-caused relocation and support those forced to relocate. However, these agreements are neither legally binding nor sufficiently developed to support climate migrants—particularly migrants from South Asia, Central America, Northwest Africa, and the Horn of Africa.
As gradually worsening climate patterns and, even more so, severe weather events, prompt an increase in human mobility, people who choose to move will do so with little legal protection. The current system of international law is not equipped to protect climate migrants, as there are no legally binding agreements obliging countries to support climate migrants.
As gradually worsening climate patterns and, even more so, severe weather events, prompt an increase in human mobility, people who choose to move will do so with little legal protection. The current system of international law is not equipped to protect climate migrants, as there are no legally binding agreements obliging countries to support climate migrants.
While climate migrants who flee unbearable conditions resemble refugees, the legal protections afforded to refugees do not extend to them. In the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations established a system to protect civilians who had been forced from their home countries by political violence. Today, there are almost 20.4 million officially designated refugees under the protection of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)—however, there is an additional group of 21.5 million people who flee their homes as a result of sudden onset weather hazards every year.
The UNHCR has thus far refused to grant these people refugee status, instead designating them as “environmental migrants,” in large part because it lacks the resources to address their needs. But with no organized effort to supervise the migrant population, these desperate individuals go where they can, not necessarily where they should. As their numbers grow, it will become increasingly difficult for the international community to ignore this challenge. As severe climate change displaces more people, the international community may be forced to either redefine “refugees” to include climate migrants or create a new legal category and accompanying institutional framework to protect climate migrants. However, opening that debate in the current political context would be fraught with difficulty. Currently, the nationalist, anti-immigrant, and xenophobic atmosphere in Europe and the U.S. would most likely lead to limiting refugee protections rather than expanding them.
While there are no legally binding international regimes that protect climate migrants, there are voluntary compacts that could be used to support them. Most notably, 193 countries adopted the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which address both migration and climate change.
Several of the 169 targets established by the SDGs lay out general goals that could be used to protect climate migrants.
The scale and scope of climate change demand dynamic and comprehensive solutions. The U.S. must address climate stress on vulnerable populations specifically, rather than funneling more money into existing programs that operate on the periphery of the growing crisis.
July 2023 was the hottest month on record globally. It will likely become the new normal and one that will not retreat for centuries—if ever.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The average global temperature for July 2023 was 1.67 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average–the warmest July on record since records began in 1880.
The global average temperature for July 2023 is confirmed to be the highest on record for any month. The month was 0.72°C warmer than the 1991-2020 average for July, and 0.33°C warmer than the previous warmest month, July 2019. The month is estimated to have been around 1.5°C warmer than the average for 1850-1900.
The heat wave in July 2023 was particularly severe in the Arctic, where temperatures were up to 30 degrees Fahrenheit above average. This led to widespread melting of sea ice and permafrost, and contributed to the record-breaking heat wave in Siberia. Similar patterns are expanding around the globe, which contributed to the massive wildfires across Canada and the recent wildfire that consumed much of Lahaina on Maui.
The heat wave in July 2023 was also felt in the United States, where many states experienced record-breaking temperatures. In California, the temperature in Death Valley reached 130 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest temperature ever recorded in the contiguous United States.
The record-breaking heat in July 2023 is a sign of the increasing severity of climate change. As greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, we can expect to see more extreme heat waves in the future. We will see more mass migration and more insecurity around food and water.
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 2022 was the hottest year on record globally, with the 10 warmest years on record occurring since 2010. The five warmest months on record also occurred in 2022, including January, February, March, May, and June.
The WMO attributed the record-breaking temperatures to human-caused climate change. The report stated that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere continued to rise in 2022, reaching a new record high. This is causing the planet to warm, leading to more extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires.
Arizona, Florida, Maine and New Mexico all recorded their hottest July on record last month, while Louisiana recorded its second-hottest.
Scorching heat was also common in Arizona, where the average maximum temperature reached 101.4 F, and the city of Phoenix recorded an average temperature of 102.8 F in July – the hottest month on record for any U.S. city. The hottest day was 6 July, when the global average temperature reached 17.08°C
Contributing to the July heat wave around the globe is unusually high sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Since April, the global average daily SST has remained at record levels.
“The extreme weather which has affected many millions of people in July is unfortunately the harsh reality of climate change and a foretaste of the future,” said World Meteorological Organization’s Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. “The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is more urgent than ever before. Climate action is not a luxury but a must.”
The record-breaking temperatures last summer had a devastating impact on people and ecosystems around the world. The heat wave in America’s Pacific Northwest killed hundreds of people and caused widespread power outages. In Europe, a heat wave and drought led to wildfires that destroyed forests and homes. Nearly 20,000 people – primarily tourists – were forced to flee hotels on Rhodes, the island worst affected by the fires, in a single day. The operation was described as the biggest evacuation ever carried out in Greece. A state of emergency was declared in some areas of the popular tourist destination earlier this week.
The WMO warned that the planet is on track to warm by 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the mid-century, if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at the current rate. This would have catastrophic consequences for the planet and its people.
The WMO called on governments to take urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. The report stated that “we are at a crossroads. The decisions we make now will determine the future of our planet.”
Fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for over 75% of global emissions. When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, causing the planet to warm.
The burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, has concluded that it is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.
The effects of climate change are already being felt around the world. We are seeing more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires. Sea levels are rising, and glaciers are melting. These changes are having a devastating impact on people and ecosystems around the world.
We need to take urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. This means transitioning away from fossil fuels to clean energy sources, such as solar and wind power. It also means investing in energy efficiency and conservation measures. We need to act now to protect our planet for future generations. The future of our planet depends on it.
Here are some of the harmful effects of fossil fuels on climate change:
Global warming: The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases trap heat, causing the planet to warm. This is leading to more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires.
Sea level rise: As the planet warms, the ice caps and glaciers are melting. This is causing sea levels to rise. This is threatening coastal communities around the world.
Ocean acidification: The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, making it more acidic. This is harming marine life and disrupting the marine food chain.
Air pollution: The burning of fossil fuels releases pollutants into the air, such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants can cause respiratory problems, heart disease, and cancer.
Climate change refugees: As the effects of climate change become more severe, people will be forced to flee their homes. This is creating a new crisis of climate change refugees.
We need to take urgent action to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and transition to clean energy sources. We also need to invest in adaptation measures to help communities cope with the effects of climate change.
Cities are home to about 50 percent of the world’s population, but cities generate 80 percent of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, not to mention other forms of pollution. Cities are consuming a disproportionate share of natural resources, as well. Fortunately, many sustainable cities are taking steps to minimize their impacts on the environment and to minimize the threats that natural disasters pose to them. Urban forests are a vital part of the equation. Saving and planting trees strategically offers multiple benefits:
Reduce Energy Consumption: Strategically placing more trees near residential and commercial properties will help minimize energy use. Trees can help to reduce energy demand for heating and cooling buildings. In the summer, trees provide shade, which can help to keep buildings cooler. In the winter, trees can block cold winds, which can help to keep buildings warmer;
Carbon Sequestration: Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. This carbon is then stored in the tree’s wood and leaves. Urban forests can store a significant amount of carbon, helping to offset greenhouse gas emissions from other sources. Maximize tree placements along roadways, railways, and other open spaces to help offset carbon dioxide gases, while minimizing the heat-island effect along transportation corridors and in urban areas;
Reduce Air Pollution: Trees can help to filter air pollution, while producing oxygen. This improves air quality and reduces the risk of respiratory problems for people living in cities;
Protect Public Health: Studies have shown that living near trees and green spaces offers a number of health benefits, including reduced stress, improved mental health, and a lower risk of chronic diseases; and
Reduce Heat Island Effect: Urban areas are usually warmer than surrounding rural areas, due to the presence of buildings and other infrastructure. This is known as the urban heat island effect. Trees can help reduce the urban heat island effect by providing shade and releasing water vapor into the air.
In addition, urban forests promote urban agroforestry initiatives, including produce grown in the trees and other crops grown under them. Urban forests also provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals, including mammals, birds, butterflies, and insects. This can help to increase biodiversity in cities and make them more livable for people. Urban forests also provide places for people to gather, socialize, and recreate.
In Los Angeles, California, the city has planted over 1 million trees since 2010. The goal is to plant 9 million trees by 2050. This would create one of the largest urban forests in the world and help absorb 25 percent of the city’s carbon emissions.
In Singapore, the city government has a one million trees movement. The goal is to plant one million trees by 2030. The city has already planted over 500,000 trees, and it is on track to reach its goal. Singapore’s urban forest helps to reduce the city’s temperature and improve air quality. In Medellín, Colombia, the city has planted over 5 million trees in the last 20 years. This has helped to reduce the city’s temperature by 2 degrees Celsius and improve air quality. Medellín’s urban forest is now a model for other cities around the world. These are just a few examples of how urban forests are fighting global warming and climate change. As the world becomes increasingly urbanized, urban forests will play an even more important role in mitigating the effects of climate change and making cities more sustainable and livable places.
