November 07, 2009 11:42 AM
November 07, 2009 11:42 AM


	Online Media Toolkit Focused on Climate Change Dr. Mote Talks with Kojo About the New School Year Fall Semester Focuses on Peace UM's Economic Impact on the State


	In This Week's News -- October 31 to Nov. 6 • Madieu Williams Gift to UM: Honoring His Mother, and Alma Mater (Washington Post, Cocorioko-Sierra Leone) • Trevor Young: Cab-Driving Senior Wins Competition to Light Up Sierra Leone (Washington Post) • Kalnay: Study Shows Climate Significance Of Land Cover Change (Red Orbit) • Pick: Scientists Create Diabetic Fruit Flies (United Press International)

Severe Climate Change Costs Forecast for Pa., N.C., Tenn., N.D.

College Park, Md. - The economic impact of climate change will cost a number of U.S. states billions of dollars, and delaying action will raise the price tag, concludes the latest series of reports produced by the University of Maryland's Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER).

RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND DETAILED FINDINGS BY STATE
(Note: quotations are excerpted directly from the CIER reports)

The complete reports are available online.
http://cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/ClimatePubs.htm.

I. NORTH CAROLINA PROFILE

"North Carolina is likely to face large challenges in adapting to climate change along its coastline, since this is where the most significant economic and ecological impacts will occur." Based on available data, direct and indirect economic effects of climate change could run into billions of dollars in coming decades.

1. Coastal Impacts: "Sea level rise due to climate could have major economic impacts on the tourism, recreation, and real estate sectors in North Carolina...More than half of the state's coast falls in the high or very high risk category."

According to one estimate an 18 inch rise in sea level by 2080 would result in a total loss in value of over $2.8 billion for residential and nonresidential property in coastal counties.

"North Carolina is also at high risk due to hurricane activity, ranking fourth in the United States for the number of recorded hurricane strikes..." A single high-impact storm can cause hundreds of millions in insured property losses.

Tourism: "It is estimated than an 18 inch increase in sea level would cost the state up to $10.6 billion in today's dollars by 2080."

2. Agriculture Impacts: Potentially severe, with one study estimating a 22.6 percent climate change induced loss in agricultural profits for the state.

A nine-degree F. increase in temperature reduced livestock yields by about 10 percent in the Appalachian region. Since poultry and eggs contribute 36 percent (nearly $4 billion dollars) of the total farm sales in North Carolina, rising temperatures could contribute to significant losses.

An increase in severe weather also could harm the states agriculture. From 1996 to 2006, for example, tropical storms caused $2.4 billion in agricultural damage.

Forestry damages have been found to rise by approximately $500 million for every increase in a storm's category level. In 1996 Hurricane Fran, a Category 3 storm, caused $1.7 billion in damage to the state's forestland.

3. Public Health Impacts: Diminished air quality from smog and ozone could increase the need for medical treatment and resulting health care costs. Asthma, for example, is already a health problem that in 2003 cost the state $631 million.

4. Water Resources: A rise in severe weather events could harm the water supply. Increased coastal flooding of seawater could contaminate the freshwater supply and create shortages of potable water. More than half the state relies on ground water. Meanwhile, droughts harden the soil and tend to increase runoff and wash fertilizers and other pollutants into the water supply. This in turn will increase water treatment costs.

5. Policy Recommendations:

Protecting coastal developments and natural habitats will be a leading concern. "Since some sea level rise and climate change is likely regardless of greenhouse gas reduction efforts&integrating adaptation strategies into coastline development and habitat protection plans may be prudent."

Planners may wish to improve flood response plans and adjust coastal development patterns.

Additional assessment of the impact on fresh water supplies is needed.

II. NORTH DAKOTA PROFILE

"If drought and flooding increase as predicted, crop and livestock productivity is likely to decrease. Climate change also may cause losses in the tourism industry and increase the cost of maintaining infrastructure." The report also projects losses in hydroelectric production capacity.

1. Agriculture Impacts: Droughts cost the state an average $228 million annually and the loss of 360 jobs. Also, erratic weather conditions contribute annually to more than $1 billion in losses from plant diseases and related reductions in business activity. Climate change may help spread plant pests and plant diseases creating additional losses.

2. Water Supplies and Infrastructure Impacts: The worst drought in North Dakota's history (2000-2006) strained water supplies, directly affected hydropower production, and contributed to the worst fire season on record. The drought also damaged transportation infrastructure - for example, cracked streets, driveways and sidewalks. "Since climate change models project more extreme weather events coupled with drier conditions, North Dakota will likely experience further damage to its infrastructure, disrupting critical service and inflicting economic losses." For example, in 2002, drought followed by heavy rain led to flash flooding creating $2.35 million damage to rural infrastructure.

3. Hunting/Fishing Industry Impacts: Hunters and anglers spent $260 million and helped support 5,000 jobs in North Dakota in 2006. Climate changes could cause millions in losses to small businesses in this sector, since fish populations are expected to suffer from higher temperatures and lower stream flows.

The profitable waterfowl hunting industry accounted for $44 million in revenues in 2001. By 2080, climate change could reduce wetlands in the region by 91 percent, drastically reducing duck populations along the entire Mississippi flyway. These changes are also likely to affect bird watching-related businesses.

4. Hydroelectric Impacts: Hydroelectric power is an important alternative, renewable energy source in North Dakota. Currently it represents four percent of the state's total electricity production. But climate models suggest drier conditions will "undermine hydroelectric energy production."

5. Policy Recommendations/Conclusions: Climate change could "impose considerable costs" on the agricultural, residential, business, power and recreational sectors. More specific data is needed to project the likely impact on specific sectors. Policymakers should consider a series of analytical and preparatory responses:

Assess state's water supply for agriculture, residential, business, recreational and power sectors;

Water management security, conservation and drought response planning, especially those that promote collaboration among all sectors;

Develop adaptation options, such as the potential for farming drought-tolerant crops, water-conserving tillage practices;

Develop energy alternatives to hydroelectric generation, possibly wind power

Promote research on climate-related changes to the states wildlife populations and develop potential responses, such as creation of large, inter-connected wildlife preserves.

III. PENNSYLVANIA PROFILE

Climate change may increase precipitation in Pennsylvania and the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Overall, annual precipitation could increase about seven percent, significantly increasing flood and hurricane-related losses.

1. Flood/Hurricane/Infrastructure Impacts: Pennsylvania already ranks fourth in the nation for flood losses ($16 billion from 1955 - 2003), and flooding events may become more common leading to even larger economic impacts. Based on research in the Mid-Atlantic region, the annual precipitation increase of seven percent projected for Pennsylvania could translate into an increase of 21 percent in flood and hurricane losses. A ten-year flood event in the Pittsburgh area could increase from $8.1 billion in damages to $9.8 billion. A similar flood event in the eastern part of the sate could rise from $310 million in damages to $375 million.

2. Shipping Impacts: Pennsylvania ports rank fourth in the nation for the volume of domestic and international cargo handled, contributing nearly $30 billion to the economy. Warmer temperatures may contribute to increased evaporation and reduced water levels, particularly in the Lake Erie shipping nexus. Increased dredging could cost between $85 million and $142 million. Freight costs may rise, and disruptions to the flow of cargo could create an estimated annual cost of $995 million. The channel near the port of Philadelphia is currently undergoing dredging at a cost of about $264 million. "Expensive dredging will likely become routine as water levels decline with higher temperatures."

3. Water Resources Impacts: "Climate change may challenge Pennsylvanias clean water efforts," adding to the cost of water treatment. Large precipitation events wash more pollutants into surface waters; rising temperatures can increase bacterial counts and algae blooms; rising sea levels can lead to seawater encroachment of freshwater, especially the Delaware river. Desalination treatment can increase costs fivefold. A study in Texas found that increased water contamination increased treatment costs 27 percent.

4. Agriculture Impacts: Agriculture produces $5 billion in sales in Pennsylvania, and the sector is vulnerable to climate change. The stress of prolonged higher temperatures could cut milk production by as much as 22 percent, creating annual economic losses of about $480 million and 5,300 jobs.

5. Forestry Impacts: Uncertain - potentially positive and negative. Some aspects of climate change could increase tree growth, while other potentially damaging effects could offset and outweigh any gains.

Carbon fertilization: Increases in temperature and precipitation could stimulate forest growth through a process called "carbon fertilization." One study found that a 50 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions resulted in a 23 percent increase in forest productivity. In Pennsylvania that would translate into an $850 million positive economic benefit, and create 5,000 new jobs.

Harmful offsets: An increase in ground-level ozone, from higher motor vehicle and industrial emissions, could counteract productivity gains. Researchers estimate that a continued increase in ozone could reduce plant productivity by over 10 percent by 2100. Also, an increase in tree-damaging pests is possible, as has been seen in Colorado.

6. Policy Recommendations/Conclusions:

Pennsylvania's greatest challenge is likely to be in adapting to the effects that climate change may have on water resources and infrastructure. A concerted water plan based on additional research could prevent future water stress.

Policymakers should promote state-specific research on potential changes in flooding patterns, followed by revisions in flood response, mitigation plans and zoning and development in susceptible areas.

More detailed research on the impact of climate change on Lake Erie shipping routes would aid officials in developing responses.

IV. TENNESSEE PROFILE

1. Forestry Impacts: In 2000, Tennessee's forest product industry accounted for 6.6 percent of the state's GDP, generating $21.7 billion and employing 180,000. Some aspects of climate change might produce positive economic benefits, while other impacts may offset any gains. The overall impact remains uncertain.

Carbon fertilization: Increases in temperature and precipitation could stimulate forest growth through a process called "carbon fertilization." One study found that a 50 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions resulted in a 23 percent increase in forest productivity. In Tennessee, that could translate into an $8.7 billion positive economic benefit.

Harmful offsets: An increase in ground-level ozone, from higher motor vehicle and industrial emissions, could counteract some productivity gains. Researchers estimate that a continued increase in ozone could reduce plant productivity by over 10 percent by 2100. Also, any potential benefits may be outweighed by the general harmful degradation of the global economy.

2. Agriculture Impacts: Uncertain. As with forestry, some potential positive effects may be offset by negative ones. Warmer temperatures could increase cotton and soybean yields. Potentially, this could generate an economic benefit of more than $2 million. Yet, increasing ozone levels could, according to one study, reduce crop yield by as much as 10 percent. Also, there�s great uncertainty about the impact of increased precipitation and increased extreme weather events. A study on the impact of climatic variability on Midwestern agriculture, for example, found that a 10 to 25 percent increase in unpredictable weather could increase agricultural losses by 150 percent.

3. Water Resources Impacts: Tennessee has already experienced damage to aquifers that supply municipalities; further damage from climate change may prove expensive. Tennessee is vulnerable to flooding, particularly along its western border bounded by the Mississippi River.

Water treatments costs could rise dramatically. Higher water temperatures, combined with agricultural runoff, encourage bacterial and algal growth that create water quality problems. Tennessee's water treatment costs are already high and increased by 54 percent between 2000 and 2004. Based on experiences in Texas, new treatment costs could amount to $305 million.

Tennessee's wetlands act as a natural water purification system, yet are susceptible to climatic changes in temperature and precipitation. A 20 percent loss of wetland acreage could cost the state as much as $4 billion to restore.

4. Hunting Impacts: Hunting contributes more than half a billion dollars each year to the state's economy, part of it based on game hunting of migratory birds. Climate changes could reduce the nesting grounds of these birds by as much as 90 percent and cause a significant number of the birds to bypass the state. A ten percent reduction in revenues from game hunting could cost the state $80 million per year in direct and indirect economic costs.

5. Infrastructure Impacts: Climate change could increase flooding, particularly in the Tennessee Valley. The damage from such events can be costly. In 2003, a flood in Chattanooga caused $52 million in damage.

6. Health Impacts: East Tennessee in particular already suffers from smog and poor air quality. Climate change could further degrade the situation. For example, asthma is an expensive and prevalent problem in the state, affecting 12 percent of the population and nearly 20 percent of high school students. Extrapolating from national figures, this costs the state around $625 million per year. If exacerbating conditions increased treatment costs 30 percent, the overall economic impact on the state would total nearly $360 million.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations:

"Tennessee's greatest challenge is likely to be in adapting to the effects that climate change may have on water resources and infrastructure." Policymakers may wish to investigate the degree to which changes in water quality will increase treatment and management costs, and to account for these in budgeting scenarios.

Given the likelihood of increased flooding, policymakers should consider funding state-specific research to pinpoint the likely effects and modify development policies in vulnerable areas.

The complete reports are available online.
http://cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/environ/ClimatePubs.htm.

BACK TO NEWS RELEASE AND MEDIA CONTACTS

Information provided by the Office of University Communications
Email University Communications at emailum@umd.edu