2009.10.24
Preparing for climate change
The Government Accountability Office this week released a report on how governments are (and more commonly are not) preparing for climate change. It paints a grim picture as most local and state governments plus Washington have not given this impending crisis due consideration in their policy making. From the report:
According to a recent report by the National Research Council (NRC), however, individuals and institutions whose futures will be affected by climate change are unprepared both conceptually and practically for meeting the challenges and opportunities it presents. Many usual practices and decision rules (for building bridges, implementing zoning rules, using private motor vehicles, and so on) assume a stationary climate-a continuation of past climate conditions, including similar patterns of variation and the same probabilities of extreme events. According to NRC, that assumption, fundamental to the ways people and organizations make their choices, is no longer valid.
Adapting to climate change requires making policy and management decisions that cut across traditional economic sectors, agencies, jurisdictional boundaries, and levels of government. The authorities and expertise necessary to facilitate adaptation activities are spread among many agencies.
The report goes on to explore where additional research is needed and what communities probably should be doing now. It takes a look at three places in particular that are already adopting policies to be ready for changing climate, rising sea levels and more severe weather. Included was Maryland, where rising sea levels are a particular concern, just as they should be in Virginia.
Overall, it's a sobering report worth your attention. Check out the one-page highlights, the full 86-page report and testimony presenting it to Congress. (All of those are pdfs)
RSS feed 
Nope. Virginia's should be prudent and follow the direction of scientific thought, which at this moment, is growing increasingly AGAINST the theory of man made global warming. What sane person would throw billions at a theory that's rapidly losing support?
Comment by Suzie — October 24, 2009 @ 9:51 am
I'm sorry, but I can't take ANY government agency seriously that has a slogan with the words "accountability", "integrity", and "reliability" in it.
Comment by Patrick — October 24, 2009 @ 10:23 am
Prudent people prepare for all contingencies. Even our Military is taking action for Global Warming.
Comment by Richard — October 24, 2009 @ 10:30 am
@2 That's too bad, Patrick. The GAO is one of the standout, nonpartisan agencies in Washington. If it makes you feel any better, it used to be called the General Accounting Office, but the Republican-controlled Congress changed the name in 2004. Also, the current head of the GAO, the comptroller general, is a Bush appointee.
Comment by C. Trejbal — October 24, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Suzie,
You are completely incorrect. Please, provide evidence or sources for the supposed "scientific thought...growing increasingly AGAINST the theory of man made global warming."
I can only find conservative blogs saying this, referring to a BBC article by a notorious global warming denier. So, which national and internationally respected institutions have revoked their statements in support of the current theory? What trusted scientific journals have published work recently arguing against climate change?
Comment by WPGHSC — October 24, 2009 @ 11:19 am
#4 - What does having a Bush appointee in charge have to do with anything?
Comment by Patrick — October 24, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
WPG
Here's a link I provided on another thread. You can read remarks from scientists from universities and other organizations in their own words at the bottom of this link.
The sky is falling on these MMGW hoaxers. We might as well pour money into alchemy before we spend billions on this crock.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3
Comment by Suzie — October 24, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
so if global warming is getting ready to fry us all, then please someone explain to me why in the past 2 years at least have we had the cooler temps? and Antartica is getting thicker?
If the earth is heating, then it is being caused by sunspots and sun activity. Please refer to other sites than liberal blogs for real info ... man is not capable and extraordinarily egotistic to believe he has changed climate..it is utterly ridiculous.
Comment by pammala — October 24, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
oh and it is also more liberal fear mongering for more control...they just LOVE that control thingy
Comment by pammala — October 24, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
@9 You mean like all those "terror alerts" at election time that Bush and Cheney used to issue? Right.
Comment by Saintbridge — October 24, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
@10 ..
I'd say the terror alerts were based on much more complete and true info than global warming as the attacks had already happened and had proven that we were easy prey. the alerts and decent, at times, leadership, made certain no more attacks happened...since obama, the fbi has caught all kinds of these terrorists
Comment by pammala — October 24, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
"I'd say the terror alerts were based on much more complete and true info than global warming as the attacks had already happened"
Typical of the past administration. They were great at second guessing. Not an original thought from the lot of them.
Comment by Blue John — October 24, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
These guys must not have heard of the "there is no global warming hoax"
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf
And obviously the information this family collected over the decades must be a KGB plot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/science/earth/06lake.html
If the Global warming crowd is wrong, we all wind up spending a few bucks each for nothing.
If the anti-global warming crowd is wrong, do we all say, oops, and die?
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 24, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
There is no such thing as "global warming".
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 25, 2009 @ 7:35 am
@12 Typical of the past administration
yes I know what you mean, clinton should have taken them up on the offer to hand over bin laden, clinton was too busy with his cigars
Comment by pammala — October 25, 2009 @ 8:51 am
Bush's alerts were based on nothing other than winning elections.
Comment by gdad — October 25, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
@15,
If you actually researched Clinton's search for Bin Laden, you would know that his intelligence was not from reputable sources. He wisely chose to continue waiting for accurate information, and handed over the sources deemed reliable to the incoming Bush administration. Too bad their priority was Saddam. Or do you still still think there were WMD's in Iraq?
Comment by Blue John — October 25, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
Bill Clinton was hamstrung by the wacko Republican Congress. He had just fought a major battle with COngress to stop the massacre in Bosnia. Congress fought him tooth and nail over that. He wanted to bomb Osama, but Congress and Pakastan objected (he had to use Pakastan air space to get to Osama) and could not get Congress to go along. Politically, it would have torn our Country apart and risked war with our ally Pakastan had he pursued Osama further. He did all he could, tried to gather additional intelligence and passed such to G W Bush who ignored it all as he was too busy doing away with all regulations Clinton had instituted.
Comment by Richard — October 25, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
Bythe way, after almost s decades in Roanoke, this is the strangest weather I ever did see!
Comment by Richard — October 25, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
@17 I still think think there were, BJ.
How else do you kill over 10000 citizens a month? Well that was until we got there...
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 25, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
You guys should take the time to search through the following link.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Note it's from the American Institute of Physics. Non-partisan and smart!
Comment by Scott M. — October 25, 2009 @ 10:00 pm