The rising tide of climate change: what America's flood cities can teach us about energy policy, and why we should be worried.

• Author: Fershee, Joshua P.
• Position: Greening the Grid Building a Legal Framework for Carbon Neutrality

1. INTRODUCTION II. THE GRAND FORKS FLOOD OF 1997: WHEN SCIENCE BRED COMPLACENCY A. Grand Forks Under Water B. A City Exposed: Failure to Plan or Inability to Assess Risk? 1. Flood Insurance, Who Needs Flood insurance? 2. An Ounce of Prevention Can Cost Millions, Rebuilding Costs Billions III. HURRICANE KATRINA: BLINDED BY THE BLIGHT? A. The Anticipated Surprise: New Orleans Under Water B. Breached Levees/Breached Promises IV. THE "FLOOD" WARNING OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND WHAT CAN BE LEARNED A. Being a Good Neighbor: If You Are Going to Be an Insurer, Act Like One B. The Direct Link: What Can Be Learned About Limiting Climate Change Losses from Rebuilding Grand Forks and New Orleans 1. Lessons Learned: Rebuilding Grand Forks 2. Lessons to Be Learned: Rebuilding New Orleans C. Communicating Risk: Uncertain Doesn't Mean Unlikely D. The Hurricane Highway and the Law of Unintended Consequences V. CONCLUSION: CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES ARE ABOUT MORE THAN CLIMATE CHANGE A. Shifting from Oil as the Primary Fuel Source B. Green Jobs = Jobs C. A Glimmer of Hope, a Greener Grid, a Safer Planet I. INTRODUCTION

   Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get. (1)

   What part of "record flooding" did they not understand? (2)

   Climate change is often considered the most compelling reason to seek cleaner energy supplies for electricity and transportation needs, yet it is almost always the most contentious rationale for seeking alternative energy sources. Despite the complex nature of climate change, and how to address its effects, the debate over climate change policy is often framed in very simple terms: You either believe or you don't.

   This Article argues that the climate change debate is often improperly viewed as having a singular impact and focus, thus (to use an environmentally based analogy) missing the forest for the trees. From "greening the grid" to "freedom from foreign oil" to economic development, climate change policies are multifaceted and have multiple purposes. If the grid is to be greener (or the other myriad benefits flowing from climate change policies are to be achieved), there must be an understanding, first, of the risks posed by climate change, and second, of the successes and failures in other areas heavily impacted by environmental policies.

   Although rather slow to catch on, most people in the United States finally appear to have adopted the near-consensus opinion of the scientific community that climate change is real. (3) Of course, contrary to the scientific community, (4) there are still significant questions among the general population whether climate change is caused by human activity. (5) Many of these questions are fueled by very public and very vociferous critics, such as United States Senator James Inhofe, who has referred to climate change as "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." (6)

   For purposes of this Article, "climate change" refers to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, which contain carbon. (7) This carbon is released during the combustion process as the greenhouse gas (GHG) carbon dioxide. (8) GHGs essentially trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to increased temperatures. (9) As concentrations of GHGs increase, the potential for increased temperatures (i.e., a warming climate) rises. (10) Most climate change research (and many of the proposed solutions) focuses on managing carbon dioxide output because carbon dioxide is the most prevalent GHG in the atmosphere and fossil fuel combustion is the leading human cause of carbon dioxide production. (11) As such, it is often assumed that the key to managing climate change is managing carbon dioxide emissions. (12)

   Although climate change is understood, at least in concept, by most people, the concerns and risks of climate change are not widely accepted and understood by the vast majority of Americans. (13) In addition to the concerns about the scientific community's view of climate change, other challenges to public understanding include laypeople's difficulties in comprehending the process of scientific research, the complex nature of climate change policies, and the broad nature of climate change effects. (14) Even where climate change is recognized as a concern, the method or methods to address climate change are anything but uncontroversial.

   As an environmental issue, modern climate change concerns were popularized by James Hansen in the late 1970s. (15) Hansen hypothesized that the consumption of fossil fuels was slowly and consistently warming the planet. (16) Of course, Hansen was not the first to advance such a theory. As early as the late 1800s, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius concluded that burning fossil fuels was and could be expected to continue to warm the Earth. (17) However, he thought that this warming trend, caused by increases in carbon dioxide production, would be good for the climate, warming some of the colder regions of the world. (18)

   Climate change is often considered a problem for the planet; however, for the most part, there is a compelling argument that the Earth is fine. (19) That is, climate change is a problem for the planet's inhabitants, not the planet. (20) The direst consequences of climate change involve how changes in the Earth's atmosphere would impact people and animals. (21) In the starkest sense, though, the planet would continue on and rejuvenate itself. It would just do so without (or with an extremely reduced number of) people.

   Now that climate change has been embraced as an environmental risk with a certain sense of inevitability (barring significant action), (22) the question becomes how to address, and hopefully prevent, the consequences. The manner in which people have (or have not) dealt with environmental disasters in the past provides a good sense of how they will (or could) react in the future. As such, in assessing and predicting the possible responses to environmental risks of climate change, there is value in reviewing how similar environmental risks have been addressed in the past.

   Perhaps the best analogy for climate change is the environmental challenge posed by flooding. Like climate change, (23) the risks posed by potential floods are best assessed in probabilities, not certainties. (24) In both cases, uncertainty causes difficulty for decision makers, especially critics, who want a specific timeline (25) or a specific prediction of the expected severity of the potential disaster. (26) Assessing the related risks at any given time is very difficult. Furthermore, there is often ample anecdotal (though not accurate) "evidence" that risks can be overcome or are not real. (27)

   For those in or near a flood plain, without mitigation, severe flooding almost certainly will occur at some point; it is simply a matter of time. Similarly, climate change, without mitigation, is almost certain to cause significant problems for humans and animals. However, in both cases, determining when specifically the significant impact will occur is almost impossible.

   Finally, the value of prevention is hard to assess until after the disaster. Many critics of legislation to address climate change worry about the costs and the impact on economic development. (28) Similarly, flood mitigation efforts, such as dikes and levees, are also highly capital intensive, (29) and it is often hard to know to if the upfront costs are justified.

   To provide a model for assessing the current and likely responses to climate change risks, this Article considers two of the worst flood disasters in American history. In Part II, this Article considers the flood of 1997 in Grand Forks, North Dakota, which caused more than 50,000 people to abandon their homes. This Part discusses the development of the flood preparations, the failures of the early warning systems, and the relief and mitigation efforts once the disaster struck. Part III of the Article discusses Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath in New Orleans. This Part reviews the safety plan in place before the Hurricane and the failures in the responses following the breach of the levees. Then, in Part IV, the Article discusses some of the lessons (hopefully) learned following the flood of 1997 and in post-Katrina New Orleans and how they apply to the present climate change discussions. The experiences of these disasters highlight the risks of failing to mitigate and (at least attempt to) reverse the effects of climate change.

   Finally, the Article concludes that the overall costs of acting are far less than the costs related to potential harms and that the costs of acting, even if the predicted climate change losses are "wrong," are well worth the effort.

2. THE GRAND FORKS FLOOD OF 1997: WHEN SCIENCE BRED COMPLACENCY

   Floods are 'acts of God,' but flood losses are largely acts of man. (30)

   1. Grand Forks Under Water

      As in any community at risk for flooding, Grand Forks, North Dakota (31) always watches the spring thaw with a cautious eye. (32) The Red River of the North runs through Grand Forks, along the state line with Minnesota. (38) The river oddly runs south to north, up to Winnipeg and ultimately into the Hudson River, the result of a glacial lake (Lake Agassiz) that has since all but disappeared. (34)

      Grand Forks was, and is, used to flood preparation. (35) In almost an annual ritual, the city created sandbag dikes to keep the Red River at bay. (36) In 1996, Grand Forks survived a near record flood, keeping back floodwaters reaching 45.8 feet. (37) In light of 1996's success, the town had a sense that it could handle the worst of the flooding. (38) And, after all, the Red River was historically "a relatively well-behaved river." (39)

      Then came the winter of 1996-1997. The winter began and ended with blizzards--a total of eight--that led to a record snowfall in excess of 100 inches. (40) There was fro doubt that the river would reach flood stage the only...