The nation’s largest landlord—the New York City Housing Authority—has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its buildings by 30% over the next 10 years. This is the equivalent to approximately 330,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide.
If this sounds big and complicated, that’s because it is. NYCHA manages nearly 178,000 apartments across 2,547 buildings and throughout 328 developments. All together, the agency houses more than 400,000 New Yorkers.
“As the nation’s largest housing authority and residential landlord, we can have a major impact on curbing the effects of climate change, which affects us all,” NYCHA Chair and CEO Shola Olatoye said in a statement.
The carbon cuts are part of New York City’s Carbon Challenge—a program started under Bloomberg and continued under de Blasio—which sets an ambitious goal of reducing citywide greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. A number of universities, hospitals, hotels and other commercial tenants have signed on.
The Nuts and Bolts
Most of the carbon cuts will come in the form of retrofits and upgrades to increase energy efficiency. Work is already underway to improve heating, hot water, interior and exterior lighting, and ventilation systems in buildings across the city. NYCHA is also evaluating more substantial building retrofits such as replacing building systems, which could help reduce energy costs and carbon emissions even further.
The big focus will be on getting brighter lighting into homes and more comfortable and reliable heating, Bomee Jung, NYCHA vice president of Energy and Sustainability, told DNAinfo.
Despite the agency’s capital repair deficit of nearly $17 billion, officials remain optimistic about the large-scale upgrades. Most of the funding for the projects is provided by federally-funded Energy Performance Contracts that end up paying for themselves.
For example, a previous $18 million contract funded energy efficient lighting upgrades at 16 developments—the energy savings then subsidized heating plant upgrades at six developments, Jung said.
Could Federal Cuts Derail Progress?
All optimism aside, federal cuts to NYCHA funding could put all of these planned upgrades in peril. Earlier this week, the Trump Administration rolled out the first of several major budget cuts to the authority.
The Wall Street Journalreports that NYCHA will receive $35 million less in federal aid this year, the first of several anticipated cuts that could total $150 million.
Shola Olatoye, the Chair and CEO of NYCHA, says a reduction in funding of that magnitude would “evaporate” the progress made by the housing authority in the past three years.
Here’s one wall Mexico won’t be paying for. The new Empire Stores retail facility, located inside seven century-old storehouses on the Brooklyn waterfront, has invested in a $1-million-dollar, seven-foot-tall portable flood wall to defend against rising waters.
The next time a Sandy-style flooding event is predicted for the region, 29 crates containing wall panels will be trucked to the site from a local warehouse. Workers will build the wall—all 1,100 feet of it—in four to five hours—and if all goes as planned, the retail stores will “ride out the flood like a tasteful island in a surging sea.”
Made by Norwegian company AquaFence, the L-shaped wall panels are made of laminated plywood, stainless steel, and aluminum. Vinyl webs run between the panels to keep water out. The horizontal foot of the panels will face the river, utilizing the weight of the water to secure it in place.
It should be noted that deployable flood walls are not failsafe—according to Andrew Martin, the acting chief of the risk analysis branch in the regional office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, during Sandy, there were a “large number of failures of these types of protection schemes.”
However, when combined with other strategies (placing mechanical equipment on higher floors, elevating ground levels, etc), the barriers can provide an important layer of defense against destructive stormwaters—something we are bound to see more of in coming years.
Our government may still be arguing over the validity of climate change, but it appears business owners and real estate investors have already come to their conclusion.
These days, it’s our most common refrain at NYER staff meetings: in the era of Trump, state and local-level climate policies are more important than ever.
That’s not to say that federal rules and regulations are irrelevant, or that the damage of having a climate denier in the Oval Office will not be “yuuuge“—they’re not, and it will—but for the next four years, the battle for climate progress will be spearheaded by mayors, governors, state legislators, and activists across our country.
“States have always led the way in regards to creating significant U.S action on climate change,” Heather Leibowitz, director of Environment New York, told Grist. “The Trump victory will make state climate change efforts even more important.”
New York Leads The Way
New York is well-positioned to be an East Coast climate change leader—and actually has been for quite some time.
Twelve years ago, New York was one of seven Northeast States to sign onto the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a market-based program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. RGGI establishes a regional cap on the amount of CO2 pollution that power plants can emit by issuing a limited number of tradable CO2 allowances.
This pioneering program has been extremely successful. Since its launch it has:
Helped cut carbon pollution from power plants by more than 37 percent;
“With this proposal, New York will lower the emissions cap even further and set the precedent for recognizing and taking action against climate change to support the future of communities across the globe,” said Governor Cuomo.
Cuomo has also launched Reforming the Energy Vision, a comprehensive strategy that focuses on clean energy development while also spurring innovation, bringing new investments into the State, and improving consumer choice.
REV includes a slew of tangible, on-the-ground projects, such as:
Cities and local municipalities are also contributing to New York’s climate leadership. Under Mayor de Blasio, New York City has pledged to reduce carbon emissions 80% by 2050. To reach this goal, the city must eliminate 43 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions: nine million metric tons from power production, seven million metric tons from personal and commercial vehicles, two million metric tons from the disposal of solid waste, and the remaining 25 million metric tons from energy used in buildings.
One of the city’s last remaining salt marshes, a patch of land straddling the Hutchinson River Parkway in the Bronx, could hold secrets about our changing climate—both what has been and what could be.
Four years ago, a team of scientists began taking core samples here—10-foot-long segments extracted from the earth—and analyzing every inch of the dirt for clues about what was happening in the world at the time the sediment was deposited.
They found that the samples contained more than 1,500 years of detailed climate and environmental history.
The soil told of local pollution, indicating the use of municipal refuse incinerators, which peaked in 1937, and offering clues of events farther afield, such as evidence of the aboveground nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s.
It even showed a small peak in the concentration of lead during the years of WWI (when there was an increase in production and use) and a decline during the Great Depression.
But most importantly, the core samples showed the tidal flows and sea level rise. The results were startling.
According to the authors of the resulting report, published in the journal The Holocene, the current rate of sea level rise “is the fastest that NYC has experienced for >1500 years.”
The data showed that since 1821, the seas have risen roughly 1.5 feet, and alarmingly, they are expected to rise by the same amount over just the next 40.
These measurements are consistent with other measurements made in the western North Atlantic, and indicate that we are on a dangerous trajectory.
Again, from The New York Times:
More than $25 billion worth of infrastructure will be under direct threat from flooding through the coming decades, scientists believe, including seven hospitals, 183 hazardous waste sites and the homes of nearly 100,000 people.
So, what do these results tell us? Simple: climate change is happening, sea levels are rising, and New York City needs to be doing more to protect our people and our infrastructure. The clock is ticking.
A few weeks ago, a paper was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that seemed to show a way to reduce climate change skepticism among political conservatives.
Framing messages around “past comparisons”—that is, comparing the damaged environment of today with a more verdant, pure past—increased conservatives’ pro-environmental feelings more than dire warnings about future scenarios.
Could this be the One Weird Trick to finally convince climate deniers to get on board?
I have to admit, I’m skeptical. For one thing, results in a lab are decidedly not the same as taking action in the real world—there are no consequences or compromises. Also, it’s not particularly surprising to me that past-focused materials, showing actual evidence of something happening, are more persuasive than theoretical predictions of what could possibly take place in the future.
But, that’s not to say the idea doesn’t have merit! Indeed, sometimes seeing evidence of change with your very own eyes is absolutely critical, especially when it revolves around something as hard to envision as climate change.
Capturing Change on Film
Over the holidays, while decompressing from family overload with a nightly Netflix binge, I stumbled upon a documentary that, in my opinion, is most moving, most beautiful visualization of climate change I’ve ever seen.
Chasing Ice is a 2012 film that follows National Geographic photographer James Balog as he embarks upon a personal quest to chronicle the planet’s shrinking glaciers. Traveling with a team of young adventurers across some of the world’s most brutal terrain, Balog deploys an array of time-lapse cameras trained on glaciers in Alaska, Montana, Greenland, and Iceland.
The cameras were designed to withstand extreme conditions—think sub-zero temperatures and 150 mph winds—and to snap about 8,000 frames per year. Balog and his team periodically returned to the cameras to retrieve the footage, and after several years, compiled the hundreds of thousands of images into short “films” that literally show glaciers receding in real time, right before your eyes.
The results are incredibly beautiful and undeniably troubling. Years are compressed into seconds as ancient mountains of ice shrink, collapse, and disappear. Chunks of glacier larger than lower Manhattan break apart, crash into the sea, and float away.
It’s truly haunting, and very compelling, which is exactly what Balog was going for. “I want them [viewers] to be fascinated,” he said, “and to viscerally understand that climate change is real, and this is what it looks like.”
I admit that it’s hard to come away from this film feeling particularly optimistic (especially in our current political climate). But, it’s not hard to come away feeling energized and inspired to take some kind of action. And this may actually be where the film falters a little bit—it fails to provide any kind of next step for viewers.
It’s a small criticism for a big film, and one that’s absolutely recommended, for all the climate change activists—and deniers—in your life. You can find Chasing Ice on Netflix or Amazon.
Like everyone else, I have spent the last two weeks trying to wrap my head around the results of the presidential elections.
Without a doubt, Donald Trump’s election is a huge setback for this country’s efforts to come to grips with our changing climate and threatened natural environment.
Among my colleagues at NYER, there is a range of political opinions, but we are clear on the primacy of science, and everyone’s need for a healthy environment. The vast majority of the scientific community has been sounding an alarm for years that if our planet is to support future generations, we have to change course now, especially when it comes to fossil fuels.
For the time being, this country’s incoming leadership refuses to acknowledge the profound importance, and compromised state, of our environment. In light of that, here are five things that I am personally taking to heart as we head into 2017.
To be clear, these are my opinions, based on what I’ve learned as a reporter and as a person.
I really hope you’ll send us your feedback. And we’ll do our very best to keep covering the environmental issues — like air and water quality, trash management & recycling, energy supply, and climate resiliency — that impact readers in the metro area.
1.) We are not alone — there is a global environmental movement
There is not enough media coverage of the fact that people of all backgrounds are engaged in important environmental work across the world. You can hear their voices and stories from organizations like Greenpeace International, and news outlets like Democracy Now, which reported directly from the U.N. climate talks in Morocco last week.
There are a myriad of important and useful ways we can support — and be a part of — the global environmental movement in the next year.
For starters, citizens of this country can contact incoming members of Congress, and the new administration, to voice their opinion on whether the U.S. should remain an active participant in the U.N. Convention on Climate Change, and its 2015 Paris Agreement.
“Will that accomplish anything?” a friend said to me the other day. Well, the alternative is that we remain silent as the Trump administration tries to pull the U.S. out of the global climate accords. Consider this: 48 nations — including Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Philippines — promised to “rapidly move to 100% renewable power” at the UN climate summit last week, the Guardian reported.
It’s worth noting that significant public resistance to the Keystone Pipeline paved the way for the Obama administration to squash it, and, yes, this battle may very well be fought again.
(There are more ideas on what we can do below.)
2.) The majority of the American people accept the reality of climate change, and want to address it.
According to a Gallup Poll earlier this year, 65 percent of Americans now say that increases in the earth’s temperature over the last century are primarily attributable to human activities, rather than natural causes.
This represents a “striking” 10-percentage-point increase in the past year and is four points above the previous high of 61 percent in 2007, Gallup reports.
64 percent of U.S. adults told Gallup they are worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about global warming — the highest reading since 2008.
3.) The facts, and science, will have the last word.
According to an analysis released this month by the World Meteorological Organization, the planet just had its hottest five-year period on record, with 2015 claiming the title of hottest individual year, which will be beat by 2016.
“The effects of climate change have been consistently visible on the global scale since the 1980s,” the WMO reported, pointing to “rising global temperature, both over land and in the ocean; sea-level rise; and the widespread melting of ice. It has increased the risks of extreme events such as heatwaves, drought, record rainfall and damaging floods.”
The WMO singled out Superstorm Sandy as one of several “high-impact” global weather events whose likelihood was increased by climate change.
The October 29th, 2012 storm caused the deaths of 43 New York City residents and created $19 billion in economic damage in the five boroughs. Sandy had a ‘storm tide’ over 14 feet above Mean Low Water at the Battery. Fifty-one square miles of New York City flooded during the storm, 17 percent of the city’s total land mass.
4.) Local action is going to matter — a lot.
Some of this country’s most populous states — like California and New York — are moving ahead now to cut carbon emissions, and transform their energy supplies. How much will it matter? I heard a participant at the U.N. climate talks last week argue that local governments in the U.S. could accomplish half of our carbon reduction commitments, as per the Paris Agreement, without federal support.
The State’s long-term goal is to decrease total carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050. The City of New York has similar goals, and says it is looking even further ahead to a 100 percent carbon free future, along with zero waste to landfills by 2030.
Undoubtedly, there are many hard questions to be asked about how, for example, the State is reconfiguring our energy markets, and whether New York City can get to a zero waste future. But, we are arguably on the road.
5.) Building an environmentally sustainable society will be a long, challenging process, but we already knew that.
Building a truly sustainable society — which is not a net drain on the planet — could take generations. That was true before November 8th, and remains so.
And as quixotic as it may seem, we know that it’s worth it. Every child — and every adult — deserves a fighting chance at a decent life, which will not be possible on a degraded planet.
How can we participate? Here are just a few suggestions that show the wide range of actions (personal, and as part of a group) that we can take:
call your senators and congresspeople and tell them what you think about retaining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and the Clean Power Plan.
support candidates at all levels of government who share your views on clean energy, waste reduction, and strong protections for air and water
better yet, run for public office yourself!
get involved with and/or donate funds to national environmental advocacy organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and 350.org; and local groups like Environmental Advocates of New York and the NY League of Conservation Voters.
talk with your friends, neighbors and co-workers about climate change, and share fact-based information
participate in community meetings with local officials about issues like cleaning up polluted waterways and climate resiliency planning. If you live in NYC, these meetings are often sponsored by your local community board
learn about ways to reduce energy and water use, and generate less trash at home
participate in a neighborhood clean-up day
talk with the children in your life about environmental issues
you tell us — what can people do?
Finally, here are some interesting thoughts from Randy Cohen, who used to write The Ethicist column for The New York Times Sunday Magazine. In November, 2008, a Texas woman wrote to Cohen for advice because her neighbors had decided to lease their land for gas drilling, and she was under pressure to join them.
“For environmental reasons, we strongly oppose this drilling,” the woman wrote on behalf of herself and her partner. She asked Cohen if holding out, while all her neighbors went ahead, was a futile, meaningless gesture.
Cohen responded, in part:
“It is understandable that you feel powerless in the face of community-wide sentiment…but you should not sign the lease…
To fail to resist what you see as injustice simply because you fear that you cannot win the fight assures the very defeat you dread.
If nothing else, this is a short term view. Political struggle is long. Even if you lose the first battle, you fight on, and by resisting from the outset, you shape the conditions of that struggle.
The most potent argument for your declining to sign what you regard as a devil’s bargain is this: It violates your own principles…Ethics concerns our actions, not just our arguments.”
And so this next chapter in our history begins. As this post was being finished, President Obama moved to prohibit any new oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean, one of his last actions before leaving office.
Whether served up like art at a high-end coffee bar or sloshed into a paper cup at the corner bodega, New Yorkers drink a lot of coffee. In this city, thousands of independent shops go toe-to-toe with Starbucks without flinching, and we even have our very own annual Coffee Festival.
But the city that never sleeps may soon face a caffeine shortage (along with the rest of the world), thanks to our inability to curb carbon emissions. A new report released by the nonprofit Climate Institute indicates that climate change will have a stark effect on the world’s coffee supply.
The study warns that coffee-growing regions could see a 50% drop in the acreage suitable for growing coffee plants, which need a precise combination of temperature and precipitation to thrive.
In addition, the report highlights the way warmer weather could lead to an increase in diseases like coffee rust, and pests like the coffee berry borer.
Major coffee-producing countries in the “bean belt”—including Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, and Vietnam—are already facing challenges because of shifts in weather patterns.
To make matters worse, more than 120 million people in more than 70 countries rely on the coffee industry for their livelihoods.
“It’s a severe threat,” said Doug Welsh, the vice president of coffee at Peet’s Coffee and a member of the board of World Coffee Research.
Think about that next time you brew up your morning buzz.
More than 3,330 New Yorkers could die each year from climate change-related extreme heat by 2080, warns a new study in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Elisaveta Petkova, the lead author of the study, noted that the number of hot days (when the temperature is at or above 90 degrees Fahrenheit) in New York City is expected to triple by the year 2080 and beyond, causing death by heat exhaustion, dehydration, or heart and respiratory conditions.
By comparison, between 2000 and 2006, there were about 600 heat-related deaths annually in New York City.
Many of the predicted deaths could be avoided if greenhouse gas emissions were curbed and the city made significant efforts to shield residents from rising temperatures (such as opening more cooling centers, planting more trees, and installing reflective rooftops).
Under their most optimistic scenario, the researchers projected just 167 heat-related deaths per year by the 2080s.
“This difference underlines the magnitude of the potential public health benefit associated with reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere,” they conclude.
As climate talks continue in Paris, New York and eight other mid-Atlantic states earned over $115 million this week from the sale of carbon allowances- $7 million more than projected. This week’s carbon auction, the third of four such auctions this fiscal year, was organized by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a “wildly successful” nine-state carbon trading program.
New York State’s share of the proceeds from the auction was $44.3 million. The funds will go toward energy efficiency and clean energy programs.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, is designed to both cap and reduce power sector CO2 emissions emitted by participating states. Since the program’s inception, thirty RGGI auctions have collectively delivered $895 million for clean power, energy efficiency, technology innovation and green workforce development projects across New York. Projects have been initiated in every county, say advocates.
Paying to Emit Carbon Pollution
RGGI includes New York State, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. It is the “first mandatory, market-based CO2 emissions reduction program in the United States.”
New Jersey was a participant in RGGI but Governor Chris Christie pulled the state out of the program in 2011.
Power plants in RGGI states must pay to emit carbon pollution. They participate in “auctions” in which they purchase “carbon allowances.” The price for these allowances is guided by a cap on how much carbon all RGGI states can collectively emit.
The idea is to keep lowering the cap in order to raise the allowance price- thus incentivizing power plants to switch to less polluting sources of energy. RGGI’s price on carbon allowances (currently $7.50 per allowance) has increased 256 percent in two years.
RGGI has implemented a new carbon emissions cap of 91 million short tons for participating states. That cap is supposed to decline 2.5 percent each year from 2015 to 2020.
Does RGGI Work?
Supporters say RGGI is a national model for reducing carbon emissions and accelerating the use of renewable sources of energy.
Climate pollutant emissions from power plants across the region have dropped by more than 40 percent since RGGI was initiated in 2005, a coalition of 26 environmental and clean energy groups wrote in a February 10th letter to Governor Cuomo.
The program has raised almost $2 billion from auction proceeds across the nine participating states since 2008. RGGI has “defied critics by proving that reducing climate-altering pollution in a way that raises funds for clean energy is a true win-win,” says Albany watchdog group Environmental Advocates.
RGGI’s success has proved dangerous. In this year’s state budget, Governor Cuomo reportedly “raided” as much as $41 million (more than one-fourth of 2014’s proceeds) from RGGI, despite significant opposition. Twenty-three million of what was taken this year was to go directly to the state’s general fund to help offset “various energy related tax credits.”
Buildings = Carbon Pollution
A major portion of RGGI funds have been directed toward making the state’s residential building stock more energy efficient. New York’s buildings -residential, commercial and industrial- are the state’s second leading emitter of greenhouse gases, surpassed only by the transportation sector.
In New York City, buildings are the number one source of carbon pollution.
RGGI has paid for over 30,000 free or reduced-cost energy audits for New York State homeowners. It also helps to fund low-cost energy efficiency retrofits for single and multi-family buildings.
“The people of New York expect more out of the Republican members of the New York Congressional Delegation who voted to disapprove of the Clean Power Plan,” said Basil Seggos, acting commissioner of the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation.
“The science has spoken and action to address climate change has bipartisan support,” Seggos continued. “It’s time for policy makers to act and protect our citizens from our uncertain climate future.”
Hurricane Joaquin is moving north and continues to batter the Bahamas. We may get lucky and it won’t make landfall in the U.S. but Joaquin is still going to cause widespread flooding by dumping huge amounts of rain and pushing a surge of water into coastal areas. The National Weather Service is forecasting tides over 8 feet in some parts of the Mid-Atlantic coastline.
Hard to believe, but Joaquin is the first major hurricane (a hurricane with sustained wind speeds over 110 mph) to threaten the U.S. since Wilma in 2005. Sandy, you may recall, was a huge and destructive storm, but with winds less than 75 mph it was technically not a hurricane. The decade since Wilma is the longest stretch of time without a major hurricane, dating back to 1851 when records began being kept.
In the past two years, the Obama administration has advanced several smart initiatives that recognize the role climate change is playing in making many natural disasters more frequent and/or more severe. And the administration is taking steps to better prepare the nation for a future where sea levels are higher, extreme weather is more likely, and the risk of flooding is on the rise.
Federal Flood Protection Standards
President Obama updated an executive order that improved the flood risk standard that federal agencies must follow when building or funding the construction of projects near coastlines and riverine floodplains. The new standard requires a higher margin of safety to account for the increased likelihood of floods and directs agencies to factor in the future risks of sea level rise and other climate impacts where necessary. Unfortunately, some in Congress want to gut this common sense measure.
Integrate Climate Impacts Into State Disaster Plans
In March, FEMA began requiring states to assess the future impacts of climate change in disaster preparedness plans that they submit to FEMA for approval. For too long, states have relied exclusively on historical data to gauge their vulnerability to floods, droughts, tropical storms, and other natural disasters. To prepare for future disasters, it’s essential to look at how climate change loads the dice in favor of more frequent and/or more severe weather events. FEMA, at the urging of NRDC, has made it clear that states need to factor climate impacts into their plans, also known as hazard mitigation plans.
National Disaster Resilience Competition
This $1 billion competition, sponsored by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, is encouraging states and communities to pursue innovative approaches for becoming more resilient to the impacts of climate change. Sixty-seven state and local governments were invited to participate in the competition. Forty finalists will submit applications at the end of this month with winners announced later this year. This effort was modeled on the highly successful Rebuild By Design program, which Congress approved as part of its Post Sandy recovery assistance.
Past Damages and Future Risks
If we just look at the areas threatened by Hurricane Joaquin, you can see just how vulnerable we are to flooding and how much more vulnerable we’ll be due to climate change.
Let’s look at some numbers for the nine states stretching from North Carolina to Massachusetts where Joaquin could make landfall.
Number of water and sewage treatment plans in coastal counties
Flood insurance policies backed by FEMA as of July 31, 2015
Flood insurance claims paid out by FEMA since 1978
Total amount of those claims
Additional assistance from FEMA provided to rebuild public facilities after floods and hurricanes since 1998. This does not include tens of billions of dollars in other federal assistance from HUD, USEPA, the Army Corps, etc.
These numbers are even more sobering when you consider that they only reflect our present risk and a small portion of the total amount of federal disaster assistance paid out in the nine states most at risk from Hurricane Joaquin.
Future hurricanes are likely to be more dangerous, given that sea levels are likely to be as much as 4 – 6 feet higher by the end of the century.
For future storms, like Joaquin, the 8 foot tides currently forecast for the Virginia coast would be on top of 4 feet of sea level rise, which means flooding will be higher and extend far further inland.
How do we protect that many people from the encroaching oceans?
Luckily, it’s not a problem that requires one all-encompassing solution. Just as our efforts to curb the pollution that causes climate change are made up of a multitude of strategies from reducing fossil fuel use to increasing the use of renewable non-polluting energy, our efforts to manage the inevitable impacts of climate change will require an array of adaptable solutions.
We certainly are worried about people in the Bahamas and hope that Hurricane Joaquin heads out to sea without making landfall in the U.S. But its presence on our shoreline is a powerful reminder of how vulnerable we are and how much more vulnerable we will be in the future due to climate change’s impacts.
This article appeared yesterday on Switchboard, the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Read Rob Moore’s blog here.
Rob Moore joined NRDC in May 2013 as a Senior Policy Analyst and leads the Water & Climate team. The Water & Climate team is working to identify and address the water-related impacts that result from our rapidly warming climate, while also making climate preparedness a priority for communities across the nation.
Prior to joining NRDC, Rob was the executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York (2004-2013), New York State’s main watchdog for environmental policy-making. Earlier he served as the executive director of Prairie Rivers Network (1997-2002), the only statewide river organization in Illinois, and also as the Lake Champlain Lakekeeper at the Conservation Law Foundation (2002-2004). He has a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Illinois State University and a master’s degree in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois.
We thank Rob for allowing us to re-publish this article.