Thursday, January 11, 2018

Most expensive year on record for US natural disasters


2017 was a record year for natural disasters in the US, seeing 16 separate events. With three strong hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, the US tallied a record high bill of $306 billion. The total cost totaled higher than the previous record of $215 billion in 2005. Three of the five most expensive hurricanes of US history were in 2017. As well as hurricanes, there were devastating fires all over the US, particularly in California. Fires in both the north and south of California meant many residents had to be evacuated. The report from Noaa says that "across the US, the overall cost of these fires was $18bn, tripling the previous wildfire cost record."


"'While we have to be careful about knee-jerk cause-effect discussions, the National Academy of Science and recent peer-reviewed literature continue to show that some of today’s extremes have climate change fingerprints on them,' said University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd, a past president of the American Meteorological Society." This was the third straight year that all 50 states had above average temperatures for the year. Five states — Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and New Mexico — had their warmest year ever.


Although it is seemingly obvious that these phenomenons are due to global warming, President Trump tweeted, "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!" However, Noaa scientists were quick to point out that cold spells do occur even if the overall temperature trend is rising.

Questions:
1. Do you think global warming is a issue that presidents should focus on?
2. Do you think we should be budgeting more money to help slow down global warming?


Links:

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do think global warming is a issue that presidents should focus on since the effects of global warming are scientifically proven. However, officially Republicans think global warming is a hoax, meaning that any Republican president will not focus on it because they believe it does not exist. With that said, I do not believe that any Republican president would specifically budget money to help slow down global warming. But, I do think that we should be budgeting more money to help slow down global warming. Since climate change is part of the environment, more money should go to environmental departments, such as the EPA, NSF, department of the interior, and more.

Anonymous said...

I definitely think that global warming should be focused on more. But I agree with Isabela above that it is not likely that the president will specifically budget funds towards climate change. The effects are obviously global and not just the US. Some solutions to lessen global warming is to reduce carbon emissions, which can only happen with the passage of a piece of legislation. However, I doubt this will happen anytime soon (unless we have a democratic president, and democratic control over both the House and Senate). As of now, the only thing environmental agencies can do is mitigate the effects, which is not really a long term solution.

Anonymous said...

After doing the budgeting activity in class, I am shocked that the US does not place mandatory funds for the EPA. We are destroying Earth at a rapid rate and if we do not put in effort for change, we will continue to see more and more of these issues every year. Although the effects may be global, if the US were to take the first stand on the issue then it could influence more nations to take action. This issue impacts all life on Earth and we must be proactive with our approach of this subject.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Kevin in that America needs to take the first steps to preventing global warming. So much had happened in 2017 and in result of that, thousands of people lost their homes and jobs to something they could not control. If the US takes the first steps to putting more thought and funding into global warming, other nations would most likely follow in our foot steps.

Anonymous said...

I think that in order to address the climate change problem, we need to stop thinking of the solution in terms of being the opposite of businesses. Republicans are typically pro business, and I wish they would view this issue as a opportunity for growth, and for creating new businesses that would address the problem instead of making it worse. Why work to revive the coal industry when it has a definite end? Why not invest in clean energy plants to ensure those workers have a sustainable job? I think the EPA is important and should receive more funding, and think we need to get over the idea that it is the enemy of businesses, and instead view it as an opportunity for progress and innovation.