Flirting with Disaster

GLOBAL WARMING AND THE RISING COSTS OF EXTREME WEATHER

U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund

April 17, 2001

ii

FLIRTING WITH DISASTER: GLOBAL WARMING AND THE RISING COSTS OF EXTREME WEATHER

By Katherine Abend U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Anna Aurilio and Jenna Morton-Ranney for their contributions to the report. The author would also like to thank Jim Walsh of Property Claim Service, Rebecca Perfect and of FEMA, Mark Stevens of NFIP, Angelika Wirtz of Munich Re, Brad Karmen of FSA, Cindy Pitz of SBA, and Peter Navesky of the Army Corps of Engineers for their help with data collection. The information in this report does not reflect the views of any person, government agency, or company listed above.

The U.S. PIRG Education Fund appreciates the ongoing support from the Energy Foundation, the Messinger Foundation, the New York Community Trust, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and the Beldon Foundation for supporting our work.

For copies of this report send a check or money order in the amount of $30 to U.S. PIRG at the following address, attention “Reports”. The report is also available at http://www.pirg.org/disaster.

U.S. PIRG Education Fund

218 D Street, SE Washington DC 20003 (202) 546-9470 (phone)

(202) 546-2461 (fax) uspirg@pirg.org

www.pirg.org

U.S. PIRG Education Fund is a non-profit, non-partisan consumer and environmental watchdog organization. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, in association with the state PIRGs in 26 states, conducts research and public education on public health, environmental, consumer, and democracy issues.

iv

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION: GLOBAL WARMING..........................................................................3

MOUNTING EVIDENCE FOR GLOBAL WARMING ......................................................7

EXTREME WEATHER AND GLOBAL WARMING.........................................................9

2000: A YEAR FOR EXTREME WEATHER ...................................................................13

COSTS OF EXTREME WEATHER...................................................................................17

A. ECONOMIC COSTS .......................................................................................................... 17 B. INSURED LOSSES............................................................................................................ 19 C. GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE ............................................................................................ 21

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: A RESPONSIBLE ENERGY PLAN ........................28

APPENDIX............................................................................................................................29

A. INFLATION ..................................................................................................................... 29 B. POPULATION .................................................................................................................. 30

ENDNOTES ..........................................................................................................................31

1

Executive Summary Global warming may be the most serious environmental threat we face today. The Red Cross has warned, “Few scientists now doubt that climate change will be among the most pervasive environmental threats of the coming century.” Caused primarily by power plant, industry, and automobile pollution, scientists predict that global warming will lead to rising sea levels, the spread of disease and hunger, species extinction, and increases in extreme weather events. Many of these projected impacts of global warming are by nature slow and gradual. Small changes in average global temperatures can, however, produce dramatic changes in extreme weather.

Scientists have linked rising global temperatures to increases in the frequency and severity of weather phenomena such as extreme heat, droughts, fires, intense precipitation, floods, hurricanes, and the shift in ocean systems known as El Niño. Recent increases in such extreme weather events are consistent with scientists’ predictions. Weather-related disasters have devastated American communities in every part of the country, and killed tens of thousands of people around the world. This report looks in depth at the rising rates of a number of extreme weather phenomena and their link to global warming. This report also documents a portion of the growing economic costs due to extreme weather and their impact on American communities throughout the 1990s and in 2000.

A powerful coalition of electric power producers, auto manufacturers, and oil and coal

companies have worked for years to slow any efforts to control global warming pollution. These industries maintain enormous influence over decision-makers by contributing to political campaigns. In 2000, fossil fuel industries gave over $55 million to candidates, with more than three-quarters of that going to Republicans.5 Their investment appears to have paid off. Shortly after taking office, President Bush reversed his campaign promise to reduce global warming pollution from power plants, bowing to pressure from the coal industry. He then decided to withdraw from international negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty intended to curb global warming.

Fossil fuel industries claim that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are too expensive to contemplate. This argument blatantly ignores the enormous economic and human costs of living with the impacts of a warming planet. The reality is that the tragic destruction of homes, businesses, and lives surpasses economic analysis. Nevertheless, the economic costs of extreme weather events can be used as a crude measure of a portion of the price exacted by our changing climate. Economic impacts can show that, as global temperatures continue to rise, the costs too expensive to contemplate are the costs of doing nothing.

“Climate change will be manifested in a catalogue of disasters such as storms, droughts, and flooding unparalleled in modern times.” International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 1999.

2

Among the major findings of this report are:

• Weather related deaths and economic losses:

1990-1999 (In 2000 dollars)

2000

Deaths Economic Loss Deaths Economic Loss U.S. 3,997 $204.3 billion U.S. 222 $8.4 billion Worldwide 330,129 $646.2 billion Worldwide 8,851 $31.4 billion

• In 2000, there were a record 730 weather-related natural catastrophes reported worldwide, ninety more than the previous record year of 1999.

• Worldwide, the number of great weather disasters in the 1990s was more than 5 times the number for the 1950s, and damages were more than 10 times as high (adjusted for inflation).

• In the 1990s, American communities experienced more than $87.2 billion in weather-related insured losses, and the government spent more than $65.5 billion in government assistance. In 2000 alone, insured losses in the United States totaled $4.3 billion while the government spent nearly $6.2 billion to respond to and mitigate extreme weather damages.

• The average number of weather-related disaster declarations has more than doubled in recent years, with the 45 declarations in 2000 far exceeding the average 21.7 disaster declarations per year during the 1980s.

• Weather-related damage throughout the 1990s was not centralized in one area of the country. The five states experiencing the most damage for the decade were, in descending order: Florida, Texas, California, North Carolina, and Minnesota.

• Farm states and states struck by hurricanes bore the largest burden per capita. States with the most damage per capita in the 1990s were, in descending order: North Dakota, South Dakota, Hawaii, Florida, Kansas, and Oklahoma. In 2000, the highest per capita costs occurred in North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Montana.

3

Introduction: Global Warming

2000 was the fifth hottest year ever recorded for global surface temperatures, following 1998, 1997, 1995, and 1990. Every year of the 1990s was among the planet’s hottest 15 since records began in 1880, making it the hottest decade on record.6 Studies of tree rings and ice cores identify the 1990s as the hottest decade of the past millennium.7 (Fig. 1) The National Academy of Sciences has said unequivocally that global warming is “undoubtedly real.”8 Why is this happening? Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, have emitted greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat near the earth’s surface, causing temperatures to rise. In the last 50 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global warming pollutant, have increased by 30%.9 Studies of ice cores show that historically, atmospheric temperatures are higher when concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are higher. These same studies show that concentrations of greenhouse gases are far higher today than at any time in at least the past 420,000 years.10 (Fig. 2) The result is global warming, and the associated rise in extreme weather events. In addition to heat waves, climatologists link global warming to an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts, intense precipitation, and storms. Over the past century, average global temperatures have increased by about 1°F.11 If emissions are left unchecked, temperatures are expected to rise by 2.7 to 10.4°F over the next century, and continue rising.12 Though this may appear a small change at first glance, it is worth comparing to the last ice age when global average temperatures were only 5-9 degrees cooler than today,13 and ice more than a thousand feet thick covered what is now New York and St. Louis.14 Today’s greenhouse gas emissions are doing long-term damage to our climate because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.15 This means that current emissions build on past pollution while the impacts of today’s emissions will be felt for generations to come. This build-up of greenhouse gases leads to the most pressing reason to act quickly: the threshold point. Temperature increases are already causing important changes, which will in turn lead to further warming. For example, the ice, which covers much of the earth, reflects some of the sun’s light back into the atmosphere. Global warming is causing some of this ice to melt, and the dark earth beneath absorbs more of the sun’s light, thus leading to further warming. Similarly, initial warming causes more water to evaporate into the atmosphere. Water vapor is another greenhouse gas whose increasing presence may ultimately cause further warming. These contributors to global warming suggest a point at which the trend takes on a snowball effect outside of human control. After this point, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would not reverse the global warming. 16 This unknown threshold demonstrates that we may have a narrow window of time to curb global warming pollution before the damage becomes irreversible. This should provoke immediate action. However, U.S. emissions continue to increase every year. Although the 1992 Rio Treaty, signed by former President Bush and ratified by the Senate, required U.S. emissions to return to 1990 levels by the year 2000, emissions today are already 11% higher than they were a decade ago.17 In November 2000, negotiators met to finalize the details of the Kyoto Protocol,

4

a treaty requiring countries to reduce their emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. Under the Clinton administration, negotiations disintegrated in the final hours because the European Union and other countries refused to compromise when the United States sought to rely on loopholes instead of real emissions reductions. Negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol are scheduled to resume in Bonn, Germany in July 2001. However, President Bush has already indicated that he opposes the Kyoto protocol because he feels it places an unfair burden on the United States. With 4% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. is by far the world’s biggest contributor to global warming.18 Most of this pollution comes from cars and power plants.19 The European Union seems prepared to forge ahead with the Kyoto protocol with or without participation of the United States. However, walking away from the protocol will damage U.S. relationships with allies. After attending a meeting of environmental ministers in March 2001, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman wrote the President a memo stating that global warming is “a credibility issue for the U.S. in the international Community. It is also an issue that is resonating here, at home. We need to appear engaged and shift the discussion from the focus on the ‘K’ word (Kyoto Protocol) to action”.20 Instead of embracing this strategy to set emission reduction goals domestically, the President walked away from his campaign promise to reduce CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.

President Bush cited the energy problems in California as an explanation for this reversal, as well as his decision to abandon negotiations on a climate treaty and his vocal support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He claims that the energy problems stem from a need to increase supply and relax environmental regulations. In truth, energy efficiency and renewable energy will help solve current energy problems and save consumers money. By contrast opening the refuge would have little to no impact on our energy problems because the oil would take ten years to reach the market, have no impact on international prices, and would only last six months. Meanwhile, relaxing environmental regulations will only lead to dirtier air and more global warming pollution. The sources of the electricity problems stem in part, from wrong-headed utility deregulation schemes, which allow power generators to game the market and drive prices up. In some cases these generators may have purposely withheld electricity from the grid to make higher profits. In addition, utilities cut their energy efficiency programs that would have helped reduce demand during peak energy use times. A real solution to electricity problems requires investment in energy efficiency programs that would quickly bring down demand, save consumers money and help reduce prices. In addition, we should increase our support for renewable generation, as these energy sources are not subject to volatile fuel markets. These solutions would ensure an affordable supply of energy while reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Given the disproportionate level of U.S. responsibility for global warming pollution, the scientific consensus on the severity of the global warming problem, and the economic costs of global warming revealed in this report, the United States should assume a leadership role in reducing global warming pollution. Current energy problems can be improved by clean energy solutions that will also reduce global warming pollution.

Figure 1. Temperatures over the past 1000 years show a long-term cooling trend followed by unprecedented warming over the last century, with the 1990s the hottest decade and 1998 the hottest year of the past millennium.21

Figure 2. Temperatures over the past 420,000 years correlate well with levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, as determined from studies of Antarctic ice cores.22 This figure shows this correlation over the last 160,000 years, including the last century when atmospheric CO2 increased sharply to 20% higher than any previous level.23

5

6

Mounting Evidence for Global Warming

There is a scientific consensus supporting global warming. A comprehensive assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an officially appointed body of 2500 of the world’s global warming experts, determined that “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”1 James Baker, Director of the U.S. National and Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Peter Ewins, CEO of the UK Meteorological Office have said of global warming that “the evidence is almost incontrovertible that man has an affect... Our new data and understanding now point to a critical situation.”2 As the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has warned, “Few scientists now doubt that climate change will be among the most pervasive environmental threats of the coming century.”3 A sampling of recent studies reflects the constantly mounting evidence for the effects of global warming: • Unprecedented Warming: A recent study found the rate of warming over the past few decades

to be unprecedented in the historical record.4,5 Another study measuring subsurface temperatures found the past century to be the warmest in 500 years.6 A further study of tree rings, ice cores, sediments, and corals found recent years to be the hottest in a millennium.7

� Heightened Greenhouse Effect: Researchers determined that more of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth and leaving the atmosphere was blocked by heat absorbing greenhouse gases in 1997 than in 1970. This represents some of the first direct evidence of global warming.8

• Sea level: A number of studies have shown that sea levels, expected to rise with warming temperatures due to the thermal expansion of water, have already risen 4-8 inches over the past century,9 submerging beaches and killing flora from Florida10 to Fiji,11 and threatening the very existence of island nations like the Maldives.12

• Arctic Melting: Satellite data show that there have been decreases of about 10% in the extent

of snow cover since the late 1960s.13 Another study found that the thickness of the arctic ice cap has shrunk by 40% over the last three decades.14 Thawing polar ice opened the once-unnavigable Northwest Passage waterway in the Canadian Arctic.15

• Species Extinction: A study of the Costa Rican cloud forest found that global warming appears

to have caused the extinction of 20 frog species since 1987, 40% of the total number, including the beautiful Golden Toad. Numerous other amphibians and reptiles have suffered severe population reductions.16

• Disintegrating Ice Shelf: As average regional temperatures have increased by 4.5°F over the

past 60 years, 100 pieces of Antarctic ice shelf, each exceeding 15 miles in length, have broken off the continental ice mass since 1974, including one 25 miles long in 1999,17 the disintegration of the entire 770 square mile Larson A ice shelf in 1995,18 and of 1,150 square miles of the Larson B and Wilkens ice shelves from 1998 to 1999.19

7

• Disappearing Glaciers: Studies reveal the world’s glaciers are disappearing. At current record melting rates, the 15,000 Himalayan glaciers that make up the world’s largest non-polar ice mass will be gone in forty years.20 Similarly, the Alps have lost half their ice to record melting in the past century, half the glaciers of the Caucasus are gone, only 8% remains of Mt. Kenya’s largest glacier.21

• Coral Bleaching: Recent years have seen record amounts of coral bleaching in all the world’s

oceans, with up to 90% of corals dead or dying in many areas. The major cause is elevated ocean temperatures, caused or exacerbated by global warming.22

• Early Spring: Studies show there is likely to have been a reduction of about two weeks in the

annual duration of lake and river ice cover in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere over the 20th century.23 Another study found toads, frogs, and newts in Britain spawning earlier, while further studies identified early leafing of English oaks and early blooming of Washington, DC cherry trees.24

Scientists predict that if we continue to increase global warming emissions unchecked,

impacts will include rising sea levels and coastal flooding, the spread of disease and hunger, mass species extinction, and increases in extreme weather events. This report examines the rise in extreme weather events, and their link to global warming.

8

Extreme Weather and Global Warming

Many of us are lucky enough not to have experienced much if any of the destruction caused by extreme weather events throughout the 1990s and in 2000. Watching from our warm, dry living rooms, there is a certain fascination with the incredible destruction and drama caused by extreme weather. But for the people and communities that live through them, these are devastating events.

Forests fires, which are exacerbated by drought, are one of the most devastating results of extreme weather. For 23 years, Kelly Kaminski and his family have lived in a forested area near Homestead, FL, not far from the Everglades. He is accustomed to dry seasons and fires, but he wasn’t ready for this season. When Kaminski left for work the morning of April 5, his neighborhood was hazy with smoke. When he returned that afternoon, he was homeless. “I drove up to my home, and it was gone”, he said. “It had burned right down to the ground. I was left standing alone in a pile of ashes without any money even to go to a hotel.”

Kaminski’s family was safe – his wife was in California and his daughters at college. But the family’s dog and cats perished in the fire, and the family’s possessions were destroyed.25 Weather-related natural disasters often go unrecognized as predicted impacts of global warming. When hurricanes, floods, or droughts devastate our communities, Americans commonly view these blights as unavoidable, or “acts of God.” Yet as greenhouse gas emissions continue to raise global temperatures, the problem may increasingly be human in origin. Small changes in the earth’s average temperature can produce relatively large changes in the risk of extreme weather events.26 (Fig. 3) According to climatologists, global warming may lead to extreme weather in several ways. • Heat waves Warmer temperatures cause stronger, more frequent heat waves.27

• Droughts Warmer temperatures increase evaporation, causing stronger, more frequent droughts.28

• Fires Dry conditions in turn lead to more fires.29

• Precipitation While increased evaporation causes droughts in some areas, the enhanced moisture content of the air makes for more intense downpours and blizzards.30

• Floods Heavy rainfall and melting snow in turn leads to flooding.31

• Hurricanes Hurricane development is dependent on sea surface heat. Warmer temperatures may therefore increase their frequency and strength.32

• El Niños An El Niño is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific that impacts weather around the world. Warmer temperatures may increase the frequency and severity of El Niños and their related weather anomalies (Fig. 4).33,34

It is not currently possible to definitively link any single weather event with global

warming. Causal connections can only be determined through statistical analysis of long-term

9

trends. However, recent weather trends in the U.S. are consistent with scientists’ projections of the impacts of global warming. Moreover, whether recent extreme weather events are caused by global warming, or simply serve as harbingers of what to expect in a warmer world, these weather-related disasters underscore the dangers of failing to curb emissions of global warming pollution.

10

Top 10 El Niños of the Century Global Mean Temperature Anomalies

Figure 4. The frequency and severity of El Ninos have increased over the past century; an effect that some scientists think may be linked to global warming. Bar widths represent duration.

Source: NOAA35

Figure 3. This diagram illustrates how extreme temperature or weather events which now occur with very low frequency (dark shaded areas) can become dramatically more common (light shaded area) with a small change in average temperature.

Source: Meehl et al.

11

Increasing FEMA Disaster Declarations

James L. Witt, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency has said, “There is no doubt that the human and financial costs of weather-related disasters have been increasing in recent years. It is time to increase our efforts in applying prevention strategies to reduce the impacts of the changes in weather climate.”36 One measure of increases in extreme weather events is the rise in the number of federal disaster declarations since the late 1970s. In 2000, 45 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) weather-related major disasters were declared.37 By comparison, the average number of weather-related major disaster declarations per year in the 1980s was 21.7. The chart below shows a more than doubling in the number of weather-related FEMA disaster declarations over the past two decades. FEMA disaster declarations do not include emergency declarations or fire suppression declarations, nor do they include agricultural disaster declarations like those due to 1999’s drought, which are handled independently by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Source: FEMA THE MAJOR DISASTER PROCESS A Major Disaster Declaration usually follows these steps:

• Local Government Responds, supplemented by neighboring communities and volunteer agencies. If overwhelmed, they turn to the state for assistance;

• The State Responds with state resources, such as the National Guard and state agencies;

• Damage Assessment by local, state, federal, and volunteer organizations determines losses and recovery needs;

• A Major Disaster Declaration is requested by the governor, based on the damage assessment, with an agreement to commit state funds and resources to the long-term recovery;

• FEMA Evaluates the request and recommends action to the White House based on the disaster, the local community, and the state’s ability to recover;

• The President Approves the request, or FEMA informs the governor that it has been denied. This decision process could take a few hours or several weeks depending on the nature of the disaster.38

0102030405060

1977

-197

9

1980

-198

2

1983

-198

5

1986

-198

8

1989

-199

1

1992

-199

4

1995

-199

7

1998

-200

0

Average Number of Weather-Related FEMA Disaster Declarations

12

2000: A Year for Extreme Weather

2000 was not only one of the hottest years ever recorded, it was also a record setting year for extreme weather events in the United States and around the world. Natural disasters are defined by Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company as “loss events caused by natural hazards”. In 2000, the number of weather-related natural disasters totaled a record 730, compared the previous record of 640 in 1999. The total number of casualties and financial losses were lower. Nearly 9000 people were killed by weather-related natural disasters in 2000 compared with 75,000 in 1999. Economic losses for 2000 totaled around $30 billion, compared to $68 billion the previous year.1

According to Munich Re, this decreased impact does not reflect a decrease in the severity

of the weather-related natural disasters, but the occurrence of disasters in more sparsely populated areas. For example, in 1999, Hurricane Floyd caused over $6 billion in economic damages, demonstrating the serious impact a storm can have if it strikes a populated area such as North Carolina.2 Despite the decline in impacts in 2000, the effects of extreme weather remained severe. Among the major weather disasters:

U.S. Extreme Weather

• Severe Heat Waves: Much of the southern and western U.S. experienced severe heat waves and droughts in 2000. In May, the temperature in Death Valley, California hit 122 oF, breaking all California records and setting a national record high for the month of May. A June heat wave in San Francisco caused 10 deaths, and in July, a southern heat wave caused 46 deaths. For the year, 140 fatalities due to heat were reported across the country. 3

• Record Droughts: Below normal precipitation and high temperatures led to severe

droughts and widespread wildfires in the South and West. For the third straight summer, Southern states experienced below normal precipitation, with the driest May-October on record in the Deep South States (FL, GA, AL, MS, and LA). This led to drought conditions as severe as any observed in the 20th century. Drought and drought-related damages throughout the South and Southern Plains are estimated in $4 billion. The driest July-September on record occurred in the Southern region (TX, OK, KS, AR, LA, and MS) By August 2000, 36% of the nation was in severe to extreme drought, which contributed to one of the worst wildfire seasons in 50 years. Although heat waves and droughts occurred throughout the world in 2000, the greatest economic losses were in the United States. 85,000 forest fires consumed more than 7 million acres, of forests and grasslands, an area slightly larger than the state of Vermont. The greatest losses from the fires occurred in Western states, particularly Idaho and Montana. The damages and fire fighting costs totaled more than $2 billion.4

• Hurricanes: Atlantic hurricane activity has been above average for the third straight year.

In the last 6 years, there has been a trend toward greater hurricane activity after more than two decades of generally below-average activity. Five or more major hurricanes occurred in 1995, 1996, and 1998. In 2000, there were 14 named storms, eight of which became hurricanes. Three of these reached major hurricane strength. On average, nine named storms form, with seven growing to hurricane strength and two developing into major hurricanes.5

13

• Record Flooding: Following a severe drought, the South experienced the wettest

November on record for this region. In October, Florida was hit with heavy rains that damaged or destroyed nearly 6000 homes and caused nearly $700 million in damages. March flooding in Fort Worth, Texas caused 5 deaths and $450 million in damages. In November, Hilo, Hawaii reported a new record of 27.24 inches of rain over 24 hours. The thunderstorm forced dozens of families to evacuate, shut down schools and businesses, and several landslides were reported on the Hawaii Belt Highway. 6 In New Jersey, August floods caused about $166 million in damage in Sussex County alone, where three dams and four concrete bridges were swept away. Other serious flooding occurred in Minnesota and Missouri.7

• Thunderstorms: In June, Barrow, Alaska experienced its first recorded thunderstorm, a

phenomenon that typically occurs in warmer mid-latitude and tropical climates.8 • Winter Storms: In January, a severe ice storm hit Georgia and South Carolina, leaving

over a half million people without power during and after the storm, especially affecting the Atlanta area. A second storm two days later left 20 inches of snow from the Carolinas to New England, and was responsible for five deaths. A third storm three days later brought ice, snow and freezing rain from Georgia to Maine, leaving over 300,000 without power and six reported dead. Buffalo, New York received a record amount of snowfall for the month of November. The Southeast experienced early snowstorms in December that dropped up to 7 inches in some locations.

14

15

International Extreme Weather

Floods: In 2000, floods were responsible for 50% of the economic losses and 21% of the insured losses caused by extreme weather.9

Mozambique — In February and March, severe flooding left half a million people homeless and affected a total of 5 million people.10

India — Flooding from August to October killed 1,450 people and caused a total of $1.2 billion in economic losses. The floods also left two million people homeless.11 This is the second flood disaster in East India in two years; last year 30,000 people were killed by a cyclone.12

Guatemala — Heavy rains caused mudslides that killed thirteen people in Guatemala.13

Europe — Flooding and mudslides in the Swiss and Italian Alps in mid-October caused economic losses of about $8.5 billion. Floods in Britain from October to December caused about $1.5 billion in property damage.14

Heat Waves and Drought: In 2000, heat waves and drought claimed lives, exacerbated forest fires, and destroyed crops and livestock around the world.

Europe — In June and July, a heat wave exceeding 110 oF in Southern Europe claimed many lives.15 The combination of high temperatures and low precipitation led to more than 1,000 wildfires in Bulgaria that destroyed homes and consumed 125,000 hectares.16

Middle East — The Middle East is in the midst of its worst drought in half a century,17 with the Sea of Galilee at its lowest level since 1908.18 The worst drought, which occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, destroyed crops and livestock.19

Japan — Japan experienced its fifth warmest year since records began 105 years ago.

Storms: In 2000, storms accounted for 75% of insured losses.20

Taiwan — Typhoon Bilis caused $100 million in damage to Taiwan.21

Central America — Hurricane Keith caused damaged in Belize, New Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Gautemala.22

Japan — Typhoon Saomai caused $1.5 billion in damages.23

16

Costs of Extreme Weather

This section documents economic loss, insured costs, and government assistance due to extreme weather events for the 1990s, and for 2000 in particular. Economic loss refers to all damages due to extreme weather events. Insured costs refer to the portion of damages covered by private insurance. Government assistance covers a portion of economic costs that are uninsured, but also covers expenses not included in economic costs, such as those for debris removal or temporary supplies.

These monetary figures are a measure of the destructive potential of extreme weather events. However, the most severe impacts of extreme weather cannot be quantified. These are life-changing impacts such as loss of homes, loss of livelihoods, destruction of communities, and, in worst instances, loss of loved ones.

#�� 'EQPQOKE�%QUVU� The impacts of the events listed in this report amount to an increase in the devastation caused by extreme weather. Recent decades have seen a dramatic rise in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and in the economic losses associated with them. According to Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company:

• There were 5.4 times as many weather-related great catastrophes around the world in the 1990s as there were in the 1950s, and the resulting economic losses are 10.3 times as high, adjusted for inflation.24

• Worldwide, weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s took more than 330,000 lives

and caused more than $646 billion in economic damages. In 2000, weather-related natural disasters caused nearly 9000 deaths and more than $31 billion in economic damages.25

• In the United States, extreme weather in the 1990s took nearly 4,000 lives and caused

more than $204 billion in economic damages. In 2000, extreme weather was responsible for 222 deaths and $8.4 billion in economic losses in the United States.

Weather-Related Deaths and Economic Losses 1990-1999

(In 2000 dollars) 2000

Deaths Economic Loss Deaths Economic Loss U.S. 3,997 $204.3 billion U.S. 222 $8.4 billion Worldwide 330,129 $646.2 billion Worldwide 8,851 $31.4 billion

Source: Munich Re

17

Munich Re warns that current destruction from weather disasters may only be the beginning, stating that “a further advance in man-made climate change will almost inevitably bring us increasingly extreme natural catastrophes and, as a result, increasingly large catastrophe losses.”26 The following chart shows the increase in economic losses worldwide due to great weather disasters.27 Disasters are classed as “great” if the ability of the region to help itself is distinctly overtaxed, making inter-regional or international assistance necessary. This is usually the case when thousands of people are killed, hundreds of thousands are made homeless, or when a country suffers substantial economic losses, depending on the economic circumstances generally prevailing in that country. 28

Source: Munich Re

According to Munich Re, increases in economic losses are not explained by increases in wealth or population. Even after adjusting great catastrophe losses for GDP, Munich Re still finds that losses in the 1990s are more than double those of the 1970s.29

Worldwide Economic Losses Due to Great Weather Disasters, 1950-2000

$3.9 billion$5.1 billion

$7.2 billion

$11.4 billion

$40.4 billion

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Eco

nom

ic L

osse

s (b

illi

ons

of 2

000

doll

ars)

Losses, by Year

Average Yearly Losses, by Decade

18

B. +PUWTGF�.QUUGU

There has been an increase worldwide in insured losses due to great weather disasters.30 Paul Kovacs of the Insurance Board of Canada has said of his country that “every 5 years or so the costs of weather-related disasters has doubled, with the last three years the costliest in history for the Canadian insurance industry.”31 The following chart gives total insured losses due to weather-related great disasters.32 Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance company, also shows an increase worldwide in insured losses due to great weather disasters.33 As with economic costs, disasters are classed as great if the ability of the region to help itself is severely overtaxed, making inter-regional or international assistance necessary.34

Source: Munich Re

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insu

red

Los

ses

(bill

ions

of

2000

dol

lars

)

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Decade

Worldwide Insured Losses Due to Great Weather Disasters, by Decade

19

Property Claim Services gives state-by-state insured losses for the portion of extreme weather events that are classified as catastrophes. Property Claim Services is the information resource for the insurance industry for compiling and reporting estimates of insured property loss. Until 1997, a catastrophe was defined by the insurance industry of the United States as an event that causes over $5 million in insured property damage and affects a significant number of insureds and insurers. In 1997, the threshold was increased to $25 million. The United States suffered more than $81.5 billion in weather-related insured losses in the 1990s, and $4.3 billion in 2000.

Insured Losses from Weather-Related Natural Catastrophes

by State, 2000 and 1990s35

State 2000 1990s State 2000 1990s

Alabama $91,000,000 $1,166,497,526 Nebraska $5,000,000 $680,869,717 Alaska $42,952,653 Nevada $132,831,661 Arkansas $131,000,000 $387,243,284 New Hampshire $14,000,000 $147,260,611 Arizona $1,008,393,371 New Jersey $67,000,000 $1,204,253,285 California $5,093,411,765 New Mexico $140,000,000 $165,129,154 Colorado $2,052,886,921 New York $119,000,000 $2,160,909,846 Connecticut $58,500,000 $832,218,830 North Carolina $88,000,000 $4,140,508,888 Delaware $222,971,766 North Dakota $402,991,824 Florida $157,500,000 $23,284,157,072 Ohio $102,000,000 $1,369,171,905 Georgia $70,000,000 $1,888,970,643 Oklahoma $70,000,000 $2,947,848,034 Hawaii $1,963,549,845 Oregon $323,951,080 Idaho $28,542,774 Pennsylvania $175,000,000 $1,819,771,683 Illinois $143,000,000 $1,622,691,012 Rhode Island $16,000,000 $417,695,148 Indiana $114,000,000 $1,065,425,741 South Carolina $204,000,000 $812,514,807 Iowa $35,000,000 $992,572,271 South Dakota $231,105,655 Kansas $40,000,000 $2,387,798,284 Tennessee $41,000,000 $1,166,198,687 Kentucky $89,000,000 $921,290,328 Texas $1,195,000,000 $7,676,234,900 Louisiana $523,000,000 $1,550,422,877 Utah $75,633,583 Maine $25,000,000 $285,813,917 Vermont $10,000,000 $166,231,934 Maryland $20,000,000 $653,048,910 Virginia $75,000,000 $1,536,958,548 Massachusetts $72,000,000 $1,226,775,608 Washington $642,130,716 Michigan $105,000,000 $1,031,944,975 Wisconsin $125,000,000 $599,094,122 Minnesota $105,000,000 $2,423,617,807 West Virginia $5,000,000 $425,947,418 Mississippi $31,000,000 $1,391,743,403 Wyoming $14,442,550 Missouri $39,000,000 $1,068,759,467 Other $3,237,885,174 Montana $115,332,592 TOTAL $4,300,000,000 $87,206,635,581

Figures cited for "Other" refer to claims for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and state damages not attributed to any particular state.

Source: Property Claims Services

20

C. Government Assistance

To protect Americans from the utter devastation that can be caused by extreme weather

events, the government has a number of programs to help families, communities, and businesses get back on their feet again. These programs range from assistance in clearing debris and rebuilding, to money for new stock for businesses and compensation for agricultural losses. In many instances, these programs cover losses that would otherwise have prevented people from ever recovering the lifestyle they enjoyed before disaster struck.

2000:

In 2000, the government spent nearly $6.2 billion on weather-related disaster assistance. This aid derives from programs in a number of federal agencies:

• FEMA provides funding to states, communities, and individuals to rebuild homes, businesses, and public facilities, to clear debris, to repair roads and bridges, and to restore water, sewer, and other essential services. FEMA programs are typically cost-shared between the federal government and the states, both of which are included as FEMA-Related expenses. The expense for weather-related major disasters in 2000 amounted to more than $824 million, over $270 million of which was spent in response to extreme weather in Florida.

• The Farm Service Agency (FSA) can provide emergency loans where property loss or economic injury occur due to a natural disaster that affects farming, ranching, or aquaculture operations. The Farm Service Agency also has several programs, which provide direct payments to alleviate agricultural losses due to weather, including disaster assistance, payments for insured and non-insured crop loss, and assistance for grazing losses for livestock. The FSA spent more than $4 billion in 2000 for weather-related farm losses, with Texas and North Dakota together accounting for nearly a third of this total.

• The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers disaster loans to those who are trying to rebuild their homes and businesses in the aftermath of a disaster. The SBA spent more than $1 billion for weather-related disasters in 2000, with North Carolina taking almost half of this amount in response to storms.

• The National Flood Insurance Program pays for damages resulting from flood disasters. The National Flood Insurance Program spent more than $208 million for flood losses in 2000, with Florida taking more than half of this amount to respond to damage from storms and extreme precipitation events.

• The Army Corps of Engineers provides emergency clearance of debris, restoration of critical public services and facilities, temporary supply of potable water, temporary restoration of water-supply systems, structural evaluation of buildings, damage assessment, and technical assistance during and after natural disasters. The Army Corps of Engineers spent more than $45 million in 2000 for weather-related disasters, $20 million of which was in response to extreme weather in California.

21

• We were not able to obtain the extreme weather-related expenses of the National Highway Administration or state emergency management expenses other than those participating in cost share with FEMA.

The chart on the following page documents a portion of federal disaster spending by state for 2000. Figures cited for “Other” refer to funds spent on parts of the country that do not fall under any single state, including Washington DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, West Pacific Territories, American Samoa, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

22

Portion of Weather-Related Government Assistance, 200036

States FEMA-Related Funds

Farm Service Agency

Small Business Administration

National Flood Insurance

Army Corps of Engineers

Total

Alabama $8,914,952 $105,003,633 $15,533,800 $2,491,325 $57,000 $132,000,710 Alaska $13,624,280 $381,291 $4,159,200 $30,993 -- $18,195,764 Arizona $3,771,057 $12,703,886 $686,400 $57,842 $140,000 $17,359,185 Arkansas $260,000 $94,106,875 $661,200 $399,350 $29,000 $95,456,425 California $6,949,470 $152,620,518 $10,829,400 $1,230,148 $20,010,000 $191,639,536 Colorado $331,798 $59,374,926 $1,633,200 $68,189 -- $61,408,113 Connecticut -- $11,033,662 $3,464,900 $1,231,259 -- $15,729,821 Delaware -- $1,809,049 $2,871,300 $459,850 -- $5,140,199 Florida $273,303,849 $111,778,281 $52,621,400 $122,781,841 $631,000 $561,116,371 Georgia $44,453,637 $214,829,847 $17,992,700 $990,334 $297,000 $278,563,518 Hawaii $5,461,837 $847,137 $121,400 $60,443 $42,000 $6,532,817 Idaho $1,526,405 $23,502,380 $116,300 $1,851 $144,000 $25,290,936 Illinois -- $62,241,513 $1,775,100 $1,676,937 $158,000 $65,851,550 Indiana -- $48,523,580 $403,100 $344,074 -- $49,270,754 Iowa -- $111,880,275 $2,212,900 $275,227 $856,000 $115,224,402 Kansas $2,767,221 $186,324,050 $4,796,100 $14,850 $18,000 $193,920,221 Kentucky $12,782,055 $94,276,722 $8,182,000 $1,978,874 $24,000 $117,243,651 Louisiana $2,942,165 $60,606,767 $951,000 $1,793,211 -- $66,293,143 Maine $2,902,241 $4,385,518 -- $37,046 -- $7,324,805 Maryland $11,706,340 $10,410,038 $3,672,300 $157,276 $3,000 $25,948,954 Massachusetts -- $15,703,324 $1,782,000 $127,753 -- $17,613,077 Michigan $128,087,741 $32,622,521 $401,700 $496,259 $3,636,000 $165,244,221 Minnesota $19,206,237 $124,351,390 $27,383,100 $2,187,435 $131,000 $173,259,162 Mississippi -- $121,366,769 $1,642,700 $525,207 $1,400 $123,536,076 Missouri $7,661,355 $98,056,003 $11,068,800 $5,457,225 $1,848,000 $124,091,383 Montana $4,567,745 $102,126,749 $661,800 -- $3,000 $107,359,294 Nebraska -- $210,263,193 $1,798,800 $18,762 $636,000 $212,716,755 Nevada $7,474,198 $303,136 $80,100 $8,739 -- $7,866,173 New Hampshire -- $1,008,003 -- $110,609 $18,000 $1,136,612 New Jersey $6,812,112 $15,250,526 $107,055,500 $3,837,834 -- $132,955,972 New Mexico $28,165,135 $21,500,569 $22,493,600 $52,429 $3,617,000 $75,828,733 New York $26,294,691 $33,170,900 $34,479,700 $2,739,895 $169,000 $96,854,186 North Carolina $26,835,226 $138,983,212 $509,627,500 $4,009,839 $1,049,000 $680,504,777 North Dakota $60,127,380 $384,570,930 $20,817,400 $1,210,635 $3,593,000 $470,319,345 Ohio $16,176,850 $56,896,564 $5,459,900 $1,968,520 $372,000 $80,873,834 Oklahoma $2,428,544 $110,847,740 $4,487,600 $6,882,741 $69,000 $124,715,625 Oregon -- $35,800,574 $1,735,000 $5,021,955 $475,000 $43,032,529 Pennsylvania -- $44,880,407 $34,486,600 $5,559,386 $799,000 $85,725,393 Rhode Island -- $1,396,940 -- $65,140 -- $1,462,080 South Carolina $9,398,748 $64,949,380 $24,120,000 $1,176,409 $892,000 $100,536,537 South Dakota $2,420,291 $116,655,083 $481,500 $53,075 $554,000 $120,163,949 Tennessee $4,048,875 $79,413,787 $5,288,900 $1,086,659 -- $89,838,221 Texas $6,100,824 $755,494,856 $20,278,900 $12,482,649 $895,000 $795,252,229 Utah -- $3,509,613 $1,011,200 -- -- $4,520,813 Vermont $2,864,894 $3,519,926 -- $128,357 -- $6,513,177 Virginia $14,669,159 $41,568,754 $22,249,400 $2,167,491 $123,000 $80,777,804 Washington $20,822,658 $30,315,417 $17,717,400 $1,269,169 $1,242,000 $71,366,644 West Virginia $11,761,384 $17,497,635 $2,796,300 $3,463,744 -- $35,519,063 Wisconsin $24,599,001 $28,879,247 $14,117,300 $486,354 -- $68,081,902 Wyoming $29,120 $5,383,940 $13,000 $570 -- $5,426,630 Other $1,956,576 $16,524,683 $2,646,800 $9,438,472 $3,290,000 $33,856,531

TOTAL $824,206,051 $4,079,451,719 $1,028,866,200 $208,114,232 $45,821,400 $6,186,459,602

23

1990s: Government spending for weather-related disaster assistance during the 1990s amounted to more than $65.5 billion, including (all values are adjusted for inflation):

• More than $22.5 billion in FEMA-related expenditures, with Florida receiving more than any other state.

• Nearly $26.9 billion in Farm Service Agency Expenditures, with Texas receiving far more than any other state.

• More than $8.4 billion in SBA loans, with Florida receiving far more than any other state.

• Nearly $6.9 billion in National Flood Insurance Program Payments, with Florida and Louisiana receiving more than any other state.

• More than $840 million in Army Corps of Engineers expenditures.

The chart on the following page documents federal disaster spending by state for the decade of the 1990s.

24

Portion of Weather-Related Government Assistance, 1990s37

States FEMA-Related

Funds Farm Service

Agency Small Business Administration

National Flood Insurance

Army Corps of Engineers

Government Funds, Total

Alabama $408,092,446 $597,230,564 $219,895,160 $156,670,192 $1,381,888,362

Alaska $141,811,602 $6,150,385 $48,675,863 $2,142,714 $198,780,564

Arizona $206,304,389 $93,359,244 $20,194,926 $9,449,404 $329,307,963

Arkansas $121,714,154 $541,983,107 $57,165,595 $12,877,924 $733,740,780

California $1,893,481,557 $1,168,322,750 $1,000,310,262 $266,791,369 $4,328,905,938

Colorado $36,905,429 $318,215,982 $19,406,549 $4,275,760 $378,803,719

Connecticut $36,401,904 $21,773,971 $68,920,591 $68,065,456 $195,161,922

Delaware $31,929,474 $16,445,508 $176,704,786 $17,789,973 $242,869,741

Florida $3,031,872,017 $621,886,908 $93,689,229 $1,193,077,334 $4,940,525,487

Georgia $842,823,340 $1,280,190,459 $125,706,931 $119,343,018 $2,368,063,748

Hawaii $332,698,517 $11,288,415 $187,915,214 $50,421,671 $582,323,818

Idaho $81,103,131 $215,328,130 $22,225,825 $3,877,548 $322,534,633

Illinois $872,342,132 $675,022,120 $331,443,680 $129,817,161 $2,008,625,093

Indiana $150,078,406 $412,547,689 $68,920,591 $39,109,563 $670,656,250

Iowa $503,214,541 $1,465,542,368 $176,704,786 $56,797,530 $2,202,259,225

Kansas $187,530,351 $988,612,515 $93,689,229 $40,894,897 $1,310,726,991

Kentucky $274,307,031 $179,472,641 $125,706,931 $102,941,245 $682,427,847

Louisiana $533,025,947 $575,564,055 $187,915,214 $1,025,487,065 $2,321,992,281

Maine $137,083,728 $76,909,074 $22,225,825 $11,905,080 $248,123,707

Maryland $72,093,449 $65,515,446 $6,999,949 $24,501,890 $169,110,734

Massachusetts $242,415,862 $48,113,519 $84,443,460 $203,472,249 $578,445,089

Michigan $145,055,859 $468,044,567 $29,459,201 $7,458,853 $650,018,479

Minnesota $641,118,103 $1,970,298,895 $199,644,174 $71,899,180 $2,882,960,353

Mississippi $279,177,158 $447,904,776 $123,486,559 $131,591,763 $982,160,256

Missouri $466,641,857 $643,597,814 $300,143,215 $344,597,114 $1,754,980,000

Montana $20,232,634 $533,844,890 $124,120,696 $3,522,794 $681,721,014

Nebraska $234,369,843 $847,017,505 $27,797,772 $12,253,157 $1,121,438,276

Nevada $49,761,243 $32,361,251 $24,133,603 $24,726,844 $130,982,940

New Hampshire $41,815,375 $5,248,792 $4,565,870 $6,216,513 $57,846,549

New Jersey $209,352,888 $67,080,899 $66,575,661 $394,250,188 $737,259,637

New Mexico $13,775,749 $172,780,824 $3,286,832 $1,276,729 $191,120,134

New York $646,061,075 $187,238,182 $189,420,890 $283,547,013 $1,306,267,159

North Carolina $1,063,503,191 $824,208,362 $173,462,457 $371,905,210 $2,433,079,220

North Dakota $702,373,450 $1,960,343,328 $217,871,730 $122,723,998 $3,003,312,505

Ohio $215,175,581 $300,011,168 $101,241,954 $66,332,834 $682,761,537

Oklahoma $195,381,577 $798,391,137 $95,724,985 $32,806,515 $1,122,304,215

Oregon $172,420,981 $137,807,679 $91,146,808 $47,746,494 $449,121,962

Pennsylvania $514,063,627 $171,811,629 $110,488,550 $193,420,085 $989,783,891

Rhode Island $21,719,183 $2,352,575 $4,253,699 $12,143,275 $40,468,733

South Carolina $72,924,518 $332,885,776 $261,530,982 $26,407,606 $693,748,882

South Dakota $233,077,960 $1,221,213,019 $54,974,642 $11,336,377 $1,520,601,999

Tennessee $297,627,981 $252,637,000 $74,611,602 $24,106,269 $648,982,851

Texas $668,310,226 $4,719,752,727 $588,637,064 $774,304,383 $6,751,004,399

Utah $2,372,638 $66,926,669 $1,560,285 $233,409 $71,093,000

Vermont $66,990,152 $8,450,351 $7,858,137 $4,249,037 $87,547,678

Virginia $228,922,880 $258,516,084 $24,173,679 $72,191,684 $583,804,328

Washington $551,293,211 $230,815,232 $167,243,479 $89,974,954 $1,039,326,876

West Virginia $161,661,848 $35,619,272 $41,218,953 $97,004,213 $335,504,286

Wisconsin $203,433,796 $509,723,079 $59,351,155 $21,683,094 $794,191,125

Wyoming $1,557,814 $71,403,604 $596,734 $358,032 $73,916,185

Other $4,242,663,206 $229,961,096 $1,150,544,345 $80,415,355 $841,725,735 $6,545,309,737

TOTAL $22,500,065,009 $26,887,723,032 $8,421,697,402 $6,870,392,015 $841,725,735 $65,521,603,193

25

D. States Most Affected

The impacts of extreme weather were felt far and wide in the U.S. in 1990s. The five states most affected by extreme weather were not confined to one region of the country, but include states on both coasts and on the northernmost and southernmost parts of the contiguous United States.

Per capita damages give a measure of the individual losses due to natural disasters. People living in farm states carried the largest burdens due to extreme weather, both in 2000 and throughout the 1990s, making up nearly all of the top 10 states. In North Dakota in particular, the government spent more than $700 for every man, woman, and child in 2000 on assistance for weather damage in that state, far exceeding any other state. Farm states are thus especially vulnerable to changes in extreme weather that global warming might bring.

The few top states in per capita

damages that were not farm states achieved their places primarily due to one-time catastrophic hurricane damage: Hurricane Andrew (1992) in Florida, Hurricane Iniki (1992) in Hawaii, and Hurricanes Fran (1996) and Floyd (1999) in North Carolina. Indeed, North Carolina came in first in weather damages in 1999 due to Hurricane Floyd, which caused $6 billion in damages.38 Florida came in first by far for the 1990s overall due to Hurricane Andrew. The sheer magnitude of hurricane destruction underscores the immense dangers posed by even small increases in the frequency or intensity of these storms.

The economic impact on states that

experience extreme weather goes beyond the

initial damage. Insurance premiums in these areas often increase and in cases where floods recur frequently, extreme weather events may lead to redefinition of flood plains and changes in the availability of insurance and mortgage approval.

Top State Rankings: Per Capita Weather-Related Insured

Losses and Government Spending

2000 1990s Rank State Rank State

1 North Dakota 1 North Dakota 2 South Dakota 2 South Dakota 3 Louisiana 3 Hawaii 4 Nebraska 4 Florida 5 Montana 5 Kansas 6 New Mexico 6 Oklahoma 7 North Carolina 7 Minnesota 8 Texas 8 Iowa 9 Kansas 9 Nebraska 10 Arkansas 10 Louisiana 11 South Carolina 11 North Carolina 12 Minnesota 12 Mississippi 13 Oklahoma 13 Montana 14 Mississippi 14 Texas 15 Iowa 15 Arkansas 16 Kentucky 16 Colorado 17 Alabama 17 Georgia 18 Florida 18 Alabama 19 Georgia 19 Missouri 20 Wisconsin 20 Rhode Island 21 Missouri 21 Vermont 22 Alaska 22 Maine 23 Michigan 23 West Virginia 24 Vermont 24 Kentucky 25 Indiana 25 Delaware

26

Weather-Related Insured Losses and Government Spending by State, 2000

State

Insured Loss and Government Funds

State

Insured Loss and Government Funds

State

Insured Loss and Government Funds

Texas $1,990,252,229 Kentucky $206,243,651 Colorado $61,408,113 North Carolina $768,504,777 New Jersey $199,955,972 Maryland $45,948,954 Florida $718,616,371 Oklahoma $194,715,625 Oregon $43,032,529 Louisiana $589,293,143 Wisconsin $193,081,902 West Virginia $40,519,063 North Dakota $470,319,345 California $191,639,536 Maine $32,324,805 Georgia $348,563,518 Ohio $182,873,834 Idaho $25,290,936 South Carolina $304,536,537 Indiana $163,270,754 Alaska $18,195,764 Minnesota $278,259,162 Missouri $163,091,383 Rhode Island $17,462,080 Michigan $270,244,221 Virginia $155,777,804 Arizona $17,359,185 Pennsylvania $260,725,393 Mississippi $154,536,076 Vermont $16,513,177 Kansas $233,920,221 Iowa $150,224,402 New Hampshire $15,136,612 Arkansas $226,456,425 Tennessee $130,838,221 Nevada $7,866,173 Alabama $223,000,710 South Dakota $120,163,949 Hawaii $6,532,817 Nebraska $217,716,755 Montana $107,359,294 Wyoming $5,426,630 New York $215,854,186 Massachusetts $89,613,077 Delaware $5,140,199 New Mexico $215,828,733 Connecticut $74,229,821 Utah $4,520,813 Illinois $208,851,550 Washington $71,366,644 Other $33,856,531

TOTAL $10,486,459,601

Weather-Related Insured Losses and Government Spending by State, 1990s

State

Insured Loss and Government Funds

State

Insured Loss and Government Funds

State

Insured Loss and Government Funds

Florida $29,303,044,264 Colorado $2,431,690,634 Maryland $822,159,644 Texas $14,427,239,300 Mississippi $2,373,903,658 Oregon $773,073,043 California $9,422,317,702 Virginia $2,125,931,214 West Virginia $761,451,703 North Carolina $6,573,588,109 Ohio $2,051,933,442 Arizona $716,551,246 Minnesota $5,306,578,159 New Jersey $1,941,512,923 Montana $685,344,970 Georgia $4,466,308,031 Tennessee $1,815,181,537 Maine $533,937,623 Oklahoma $3,928,914,572 Massachusetts $1,805,220,697 Rhode Island $458,163,881 Louisiana $3,872,415,159 Nebraska $1,802,307,992 New Mexico $356,249,286 Kansas $3,698,545,949 South Dakota $1,751,707,653 Idaho $350,251,395 Illinois $3,631,316,105 Arkansas $1,742,134,150 Delaware $294,233,291 New York $3,467,177,006 Indiana $1,736,081,991 Nevada $263,814,602 North Dakota $3,406,304,329 Michigan $1,681,963,456 Vermont $253,779,611 Iowa $3,194,831,498 Washington $1,681,457,592 Alaska $241,733,215 Missouri $2,823,770,477 Kentucky $1,603,718,174 New Hampshire $205,107,160 Pennsylvania $2,809,555,574 South Carolina $1,506,263,689 Utah $146,726,583 Hawaii $2,556,990,074 Wisconsin $1,393,285,245 Wyoming $88,358,733 Alabama $2,548,385,888 Connecticut $971,314,621 Other $9,811,533,573

TOTAL $152,756,598,106

27

Policy Recommendations: A Responsible Energy Plan

The United States and 174 other countries have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the global warming treaty signed by former President George Bush at the Earth Summit in 1992. This treaty commits parties to implement programs to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions with the objective of stabilizing these emissions at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the Earth’s climate. The U.S. has made little progress toward this objective. In fact, in March of this year, President Bush reversed his campaign pledge to reduce global warming pollution from power plants. This decision leads us further away from meeting the terms of the treaty his father signed. Efforts to address global warming have consistently been blocked by a powerful coalition of electricity producers, auto manufacturers and oil and coal companies who want to continue to emit global warming pollution at current, unrestricted levels. These industries have released reports with inflated predictions of what it may cost to adopt policies that mitigate global warming. These industry-funded reports consistently ignore what this report shows to be a crucial factor: The potential harm that global warming may inflict on American families and their property if we do not take steps to reduce polluting emissions. Protecting communities from potential increases in the devastation caused by extreme weather should be among our nation’s top priorities. Curbing global warming will require a major reduction in emission of global warming pollution from the United States. Unfortunately, current energy proposals would lead us in the wrong direction by continuing to provide fossil fuel subsidies and opening the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. Instead we should begin to implement smart, feasible solutions. For example, by updating automobile fuel efficiency standards to reflect current technology, we could save fifteen times the amount of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge over the next 50 years.1 Meanwhile, this would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by more than 1.5 trillion pounds a year and save consumers $80 billion at the gas pump.2 The following are recommendations for a responsible energy policy:

Clean Power: In the next decade, increase four-fold the amount of energy obtained from non-hydro, renewable sources such as the sun and wind. By 2020, produce at least one-third of the nation’s energy from renewable sources, and double the efficiency of energy use in homes, in buildings, for transportation, and in industry.

Clean Air: Clean up our power plants by setting progressively tighter limits on all power plant pollution - including carbon dioxide, the major cause of global warming. Close the loophole that allows old coal-fired power plants to pollute much more than newer plants.

Clean Cars: Hold sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pick-up trucks and mini-vans to the same air pollution standards as cars. Improve the fuel efficiency of new cars and light trucks to a combined average of 45 mpg by 2010 and at least 65 mpg by 2020. Offer incentives that build strong markets for renewable fuels and for clean vehicles powered by hybrid motors and fuel cells.

Clean Investments: Quadruple federal investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency within five years, and continue this momentum over the long term. Stop spending taxpayer dollars to subsidize the coal, oil, and nuclear industries. Provide adequate resources and job training for affected workers and communities to ensure a just transition to a sustainable energy economy.

28

Appendix

A. Inflation The following table gives the factors used to adjust expenditures for years in the 1990s into 2000 dollars, calculated from the Consumer Price Index (CPI):3

Year CPI Factor Year CPI Factor 1950 72.1 7.153953 1976 170.5 3.025220 1951 77.8 6.629820 1977 181.5 2.841873 1952 79.5 6.488050 1978 195.4 2.639713 1953 80.1 6.439451 1979 217.4 2.372585 1954 80.5 6.407453 1980 246.8 2.089951 1955 80.2 6.431421 1981 272.4 1.893539 1956 81.4 6.336609 1982 289.1 1.784158 1957 84.3 6.118624 1983 298.4 1.728552 1958 86.6 5.956120 1984 311.1 1.657988 1959 87.3 5.908362 1985 322.2 1.600869 1960 88.7 5.815107 1986 328.4 1.570646 1961 89.6 5.756696 1987 340.4 1.515276 1962 90.6 5.693157 1988 354.3 1.455828 1963 91.7 5.624864 1989 371.3 1.389173 1964 92.9 5.552207 1990 391.4 1.317833 1965 94.5 5.458201 1991 408 1.264216 1966 97.2 5.306584 1992 420.3 1.227219 1967 100 5.158000 1993 432.7 1.192050 1968 104.2 4.950096 1994 444 1.161712 1969 109.8 4.697632 1995 456.5 1.129901 1970 116.3 4.435082 1996 469.9 1.097680 1971 121.3 4.252267 1997 480.8 1.072795 1972 125.3 4.116520 1998 488.3 1.056318 1973 133.1 3.875282 1999 499 1.033667 1974 147.7 3.492214 2000 515.8 1.000000 1975 161.2 3.199752

29

B. Population The following Census Bureau estimates for state population were used to calculate per capita federal funds and insured losses by state.4

State 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Alabama 4,447,100 4,369,862 4,351,037 4,320,281 4,290,403 4,262,731 4,232,965 4,193,114 4,139,269 4,091,025 4,048,508

Alaska 626,932 619,500 615,205 608,846 604,918 601,345 600,624 596,993 587,073 569,273 553,120

Arizona 5,130,632 4,778,332 4,667,277 4,552,207 4,432,308 4,306,908 4,147,561 3,993,390 3,867,333 3,762,394 3,679,056

Arkansas 2,673,400 2,551,373 2,538,202 2,524,007 2,504,858 2,480,121 2,450,605 2,423,743 2,394,098 2,370,666 2,354,343

California 33,871,648 33,145,121 32,682,794 32,217,708 31,780,829 31,493,525 31,317,179 31,147,208 30,875,920 30,414,114 29,950,111

Colorado 4,301,261 4,056,133 3,968,967 3,891,293 3,812,716 3,738,061 3,653,910 3,560,884 3,459,995 3,367,567 3,303,862

Connecticut 3,405,565 3,282,031 3,272,563 3,268,514 3,267,030 3,265,293 3,268,346 3,272,325 3,274,997 3,288,640 3,289,056

Delaware 783,600 753,538 744,066 735,024 727,090 718,265 708,416 699,475 690,158 680,495 669,063

Florida 15,982,378 15,111,244 14,908,230 14,683,350 14,426,911 14,185,403 13,961,798 13,713,593 13,504,775 13,289,497 13,018,365

Georgia 8,186,453 7,788,240 7,636,522 7,486,094 7,332,225 7,188,538 7,045,900 6,894,092 6,759,474 6,621,279 6,506,531

Hawaii 1,211,537 1,185,497 1,190,472 1,189,322 1,184,434 1,180,490 1,173,903 1,161,508 1,149,926 1,131,412 1,112,703

Idaho 1,293,953 1,251,700 1,230,923 1,210,638 1,187,706 1,165,000 1,135,459 1,101,204 1,066,490 1,038,915 1,011,882

Illinois 12,419,293 12,128,370 12,069,774 12,011,509 11,953,003 11,884,935 11,804,986 11,725,984 11,635,197 11,535,973 11,446,979

Indiana 6,080,485 5,942,901 5,907,617 5,872,370 5,834,908 5,791,819 5,745,626 5,701,965 5,648,649 5,602,062 5,555,097

Iowa 2,926,324 2,869,413 2,861,025 2,854,396 2,848,473 2,840,860 2,829,422 2,820,525 2,806,923 2,791,227 2,779,769

Kansas 2,688,418 2,654,052 2,638,667 2,616,339 2,598,266 2,586,942 2,569,118 2,547,605 2,526,042 2,495,209 2,480,683

Kentucky 4,041,769 3,960,825 3,934,310 3,907,816 3,881,051 3,855,248 3,823,215 3,792,288 3,756,358 3,714,686 3,692,584

Louisiana 4,468,976 4,372,035 4,362,758 4,351,390 4,338,763 4,327,978 4,306,500 4,284,749 4,270,849 4,240,950 4,219,179

Maine 1,274,923 1,253,040 1,247,554 1,245,215 1,241,436 1,237,438 1,237,687 1,238,256 1,235,748 1,235,439 1,231,296

Maryland 5,296,486 5,171,634 5,130,072 5,092,914 5,057,142 5,023,650 4,985,411 4,942,504 4,902,545 4,856,176 4,797,431

Massachusetts 6,349,097 6,175,169 6,144,407 6,115,476 6,085,393 6,062,335 6,031,352 6,010,884 5,993,474 5,998,652 6,018,664

Michigan 9,938,444 9,863,775 9,820,231 9,785,450 9,739,184 9,659,871 9,584,481 9,529,240 9,470,323 9,395,022 9,310,462

Minnesota 4,919,479 4,775,508 4,726,411 4,687,726 4,647,723 4,605,445 4,566,028 4,521,709 4,471,503 4,427,429 4,387,283

Mississippi 2,844,658 2,768,619 2,751,335 2,731,826 2,709,925 2,690,788 2,663,450 2,635,574 2,610,193 2,591,230 2,577,426

Missouri 5,595,211 5,468,338 5,437,562 5,407,113 5,367,888 5,324,610 5,281,206 5,237,757 5,193,686 5,157,770 5,126,370

Montana 902,195 882,779 879,533 878,706 876,656 868,522 854,923 839,876 822,436 807,837 799,824

Nebraska 1,711,263 1,666,028 1,660,772 1,656,042 1,647,657 1,635,142 1,621,551 1,612,149 1,602,406 1,590,805 1,580,664

Nevada 1,998,257 1,809,253 1,743,772 1,675,581 1,596,476 1,525,777 1,456,388 1,380,197 1,330,694 1,285,046 1,218,629

New Hampshire 1,235,786 1,201,134 1,185,823 1,173,239 1,160,768 1,145,604 1,133,054 1,122,191 1,112,766 1,107,055 1,111,831

New Jersey 8,414,350 8,143,412 8,095,542 8,054,178 8,009,624 7,965,523 7,918,796 7,874,891 7,827,770 7,784,269 7,757,158

New Mexico 1,819,046 1,739,844 1,733,535 1,722,939 1,706,151 1,682,417 1,653,329 1,614,937 1,580,750 1,547,115 1,519,933

New York 18,976,457 18,196,601 18,159,175 18,143,184 18,143,805 18,150,928 18,156,652 18,140,894 18,082,032 18,029,532 18,002,855

North Carolina 8,049,313 7,650,789 7,545,828 7,428,672 7,307,658 7,185,403 7,060,959 6,947,412 6,831,850 6,748,135 6,656,987

North Dakota 642,200 633,666 637,808 640,945 642,858 641,548 639,762 637,229 635,427 634,199 637,364

Ohio 11,353,140 11,256,654 11,237,752 11,212,498 11,187,032 11,155,493 11,111,451 11,070,385 11,007,609 10,933,683 10,861,837

Oklahoma 3,450,654 3,358,044 3,339,478 3,314,259 3,289,634 3,265,547 3,246,119 3,228,829 3,204,174 3,166,471 3,147,105

Oregon 3,421,399 3,316,154 3,282,055 3,243,254 3,195,087 3,141,421 3,087,142 3,034,490 2,973,934 2,918,745 2,858,547

Pennsylvania 12,281,054 11,994,016 12,002,329 12,015,888 12,038,008 12,044,780 12,042,545 12,022,128 11,980,819 11,943,160 11,895,604

Rhode Island 1,048,319 990,819 987,704 986,966 987,858 989,203 993,412 997,852 1,000,571 1,003,990 1,004,649

South Carolina 4,012,012 3,885,736 3,839,578 3,790,066 3,738,974 3,699,943 3,666,456 3,634,507 3,600,576 3,559,470 3,499,064

South Dakota 754,844 733,133 730,789 730,855 730,699 728,251 723,038 716,258 708,698 701,445 696,667

Tennessee 5,689,283 5,483,535 5,432,679 5,378,433 5,313,576 5,241,168 5,163,016 5,085,666 5,013,999 4,946,886 4,890,626

Texas 20,851,820 20,044,141 19,712,389 19,355,427 19,006,240 18,679,706 18,338,319 17,996,764 17,650,479 17,339,904 17,044,714

Utah 2,233,169 2,129,836 2,100,562 2,065,397 2,022,253 1,976,774 1,930,436 1,875,993 1,821,498 1,771,941 1,729,722

Vermont 608,827 593,740 590,579 588,665 586,352 582,827 578,900 574,004 570,115 567,141 564,526

Virginia 7,078,515 6,872,912 6,789,225 6,732,878 6,665,491 6,601,392 6,536,771 6,464,795 6,383,315 6,283,853 6,213,526

Washington 5,894,121 5,756,361 5,687,832 5,604,105 5,509,963 5,431,024 5,334,896 5,247,704 5,139,011 5,013,443 4,900,780

West Virginia 1,808,344 1,806,928 1,811,688 1,815,588 1,818,983 1,820,560 1,818,490 1,816,179 1,805,462 1,798,212 1,792,481

Wisconsin 5,363,675 5,250,446 5,222,124 5,200,235 5,173,828 5,137,004 5,095,504 5,055,318 5,004,636 4,952,675 4,902,265

Wyoming 493,782 479,602 480,045 480,031 480,085 478,447 474,982 469,033 463,491 457,739 453,401

30

Endnotes

1 “Summary for Policy Makers- IPCC Working Group I”, Third Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1996, http://www.usgcrp.gov/ipcc/wg1spm.pdf 2 “Global Warming Alert from NOAA and U.K.”, Interview with Linda Howe, 2000. 3 “World Disaster Report 1999”, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 1999, p. 10. 4 McFarling, Usha Lee, “Climate is Warming at Steep Rate, Study Says”, L.A. Times 23 Feb, 2000, http://www.latimes.com/print/20000223/t000017500.html 5 “Industry Profiles”, Center for Responsible Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/ 6 “Climate of 1999 – Annual Review”, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12 Jan. 2000, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1999/ann/ann99.html. 7 Mann, Michael E. et al., “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No. 6, 1999, p. 759-762, http://www.people.virginia.edu/~mem6u/mbh99.html. 8 “New Evidence Helps Reconcile Global Warming Discrepancies; Confirms That Earth's Surface Temperature Is Rising”, The National Academies News, 12 Jan. 2000, http://www4.nationalacademies.org/ news.nsf/0a254cd9b53e0bc585256777004e74d3/c3a4d650db02865a85256864007215aa?OpenDocument. 9 “Cumulative Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1950-95”, World Resources Institute, http://www.wri.org/ powerpoints/trends/sld031.htm. 10 J.R. Petit et al., “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica”, Nature, Vol. 399, 3 June 1999, p. 429-435. 11 Stevens, William K., “Human Imprint on Climate Change Grows Clearer”, The New York Times, 29 June 1999, p. D9. 12 See supra n. 1. 13 Stevens, William K., “Global Temperature at a High For the First 5 Months of 1998”, The New York Times, 8 June 1998, p. A1. 14 “Heating Up: A Citizen’s and Policy Maker’s Guide to Climate Change”, Environmental Information Center, 1997. 15 See supra n. 7. 16 Congressional Briefing, March 7, 2001: Dr. Robert Watson, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 17 “National Emissions: Carbon Dioxide”, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 14 Jan. 2000, http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national/co2.html. Total U.S. CO2 emissions for 1990 were 1,344.3 million metric tons, for 1997, 1,487.9 million metric tons. 18 “The Greenhouse Effect and Historical Emissions”, The White House Initiative on Global Climate Change, http://www.whitehouse.gov/Initiatives/Climate/greenhouse.html. 19 See supra n. 17. Transportation and electric utilities together accounted for 65% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 1997. This value was calculated from the following statistics: Of the total 1,487.9 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) emitted in the U.S. in 1997, fossil fuel combustion accounted for 1,466.0 MMTCE, of which transportation emitted 446.5 MMTCE and electric utilities emitted 36%. 20 EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman’s memo to President Bush, March 6, 2001, http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/whitmanmemo032601.htm 21 Presentation by Robert Watson, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, November 2000, Sixth Conference of the Parties, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch/press/sp-cop6.htm. The rough line gives temperature data, the smoothed line is a 40-year smoothing of the data, the dashed line gives a linear trend line showing long-term cooling over most of the millennium, the light regions give error bars equivalent to 2 sigma (over 90% confidence) for reconstructions from proxy records. Temperatures from 1902 are measured directly, earlier temperatures are determined from tree rings, ice cores, sediments, and corals. The zero temperature is defined as the average temperature 1902-1980, and the temperature anomaly refers to the number of degrees above or below this average. 22 See supra n. 10. 23 See supra n. 18. 24 See supra n. 1.

31

25 Maclean, William, “Experts: Global Warming Now Critical, Action Needed”, Reuters, 23 Dec. 1999, http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/valery/econews/eco_lasthtml#S4. 26 See supra n. 3 27 McFarling, Usha Lee, “Climate Is Warming at Steep Rate, Study Says”, L.A. Times, 23 Feb. 2000, http://www.latimes.com/print/20000223/t000017500.html. Warming since 1976 occurred at a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century, compared to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit for the 20th century overall. Published in Karl, Tom et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 1 March 2000. 28 Suplee, Curt, “More Rapid Warming May Follow Heat Of 1997-’98”, The Washington Post, 23 Feb. 2000, p. A14, http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/Wplate/2000-02/23/1111-022300-idx.html. Warming since 1976 occurred at a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century, compared to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit for the 20th century overall. Published in Karl, Tom et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 1 March 2000. 29 Huang, Shaopeng et al., “Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures”, Nature, 17 Feb. 2000, vol. 403, p. 756-758, http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=nature/journal/v403/n6771/abs/403756a0_fs.html&_UserReference=D82349CA46B4E69786C30D25256138BD83A6. 30 See supra n. 8. 31 “Satellites verify greenhouse-gas effects”, Science News, S. Perkins, March 17, 2001 32 See supra n. 1. According to IPCC, global sea levels have risen 10 to 25 cm over the past 100 years. 33 “Sea Level Rise Killing Florida Trees”, ENS, 15 Oct. 1999, http://www.heatisonline.org/ContentServer/ ObjectHandlers/index.cfm?ID=3387&Method=Full&PageCall=/HIOL/Oceans.cfm&Title=Florida%20Palms%20Dying%20from%20Sea%20Level%20Rise&Cache=False. 34 “Global Warming Early Warning Signs”, http://www.climatehotmap.org. Reports from local inhabitants at 16 sites indicate that the island's average shoreline has been receding half a foot per year over at least the past 90 years. 35 Roy, Ranjan, “Rising oceans could be end of sun-drenched Maldives”, Associated Press, 25 Sep. 1997. 36 See supra n. 1. 37 “CLIMATE CHANGE II: Global Warming Threatens Glaciers, Sea Levels”, UN WIRE, United Nations Foundation, 23 Feb. 2000, http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/archives/ UNWIRE000223.cfm#10. 38 “As Global Warming Opens Arctic, Canada, U.S. See Security Threats”, The Wallstreet Journal, Joel Baglole, December 20, 2000. 39 Souder, William, “Frog Decline Linked to Climate Shift”, The Washington Post, 15 April 1999. 40 Suplee, Curt, “24-Mile Break Occurs in Antarctic Ice Shelf; Global Warming May Be Cause”, The Washington Post, 19 April 1998, p. A17, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/ oceans/stories/antarctic041998.htm. 41 “Higher temperatures in Antarctica have led to disintegration of some ice shelves”, Chemical & Engineering News, 27 Nov. 1995, http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cenear/951127/pg2.html. 42 “Global Warming Early Warning Signs”, http://www.climatehotmap.org. 43 “Melting Glaciers Mean Millions Facing Drought”, The Independent, 20 July 1999, http://www.millennium-debate.org/ind20july6.htm. 44 “Global Warming Early Warning Signs”, http://www.climatehotmap.org. 45 “The 1998 Global Coral Bleaching Incident”, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 4 Feb. 2000, http://www.wcmc.org.uk/latenews/bleaching.htm. 46 See supra n. 1. 47 “Global Warming: Early Warning Signs,” www.climatehotmap.org. 48 Spark to Finish: Americans from Florida to Montana Assess Fire Losses”, by Peter Salter, Larry Backus, Martin Kidston, and Ron Seely, Lee News Network, http://www.montanafires.com/feature/1001spark.php?id=0 49 Meehl et al., “Trends in Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Issues Related to Modeling Extremes in Projections of Future Climate Change”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, March 2000, p. 427-436. 50 “Summary for Policymakers: Scientific-Technical Analyses of Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change - IPCC Working Group II”, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995, http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/sarsum2.htm. 51 Ibid. 52 See supra n. 50. 53 See supra n. 50.

32

54 See supra n. 50. 55 “Global Warming & Atlantic Hurricanes”, Backgrounder from WWF, September 1999, http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/floyback.htm. This refers to all tropical storms, including hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, et al. Columbia University’s Leonard Druyan says of a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences Climate Model, “Our research points to an increase in the frequency of tropical storms with global warming.” “Floyd’s Watery Wrath”, Newsweek, 27 Sep. 1999, p. 21. The government’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory has said, “The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth’s climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” “Global Warming and Hurricanes”, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, http://www.gfdl.gov/~rt/glob_warm_hurr.html. 56 McPhaden, Michael J., “El Niño: The child prodigy of 1997-98”, Nature, v. 398, 15 Apr. 1999, p. 559-662. 57 “Any message for global warming?” El Niño Rules, http://news3.news.wisc.edu/050el_nino/6.html referring to Vogel and Lawler, “Hot Year, but Cool Response in Congress”, Science, 12 June 1998, p. 1684. 58 “The Top Ten El Nino Events of the 20th century”, Climate Perpectives Branch, Global Climate Lab, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 4 June, 1998, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/1988/enso/10elnino.html 59 Ball, Christopher, “National Academy of Sciences Speaks Out on Global Warming: Report Finds Warming ‘Undoubtedly Real’”, Media Advisory, Ozone Action, 12 Jan. 2000. 60 “2000 Disaster Activity, January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, Major Disaster Declarations”, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 29, Dec. 2000, http://www.fema.gov/library/diz00.htm 61 “The Disaster Process and Disaster Aid Programs”, FEMA, http://www.fema.gov/library/dproc.htm. 62 “Natural Catastrophes 2000”, Munich Re, 2000 63 “Floyd’s Legacy: Record losses in North Carolina”, CNN, 22 Sept. 1999, http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9909/22/floyd.02/ 64 “2000 in Review”, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 8, Jan. 2001, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s547.htm 65 See Supra n. 64. 66 See Supra n. 64. 67 “Significant U.S. Weather and Climate Events for 2000”, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, 21, Dec. 2000, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/special/usevents-2000.pdf 68 “Significant Weather Events- 2000”, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 5, Jan. 2001, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/images/00dis.gif 69 Ibid. 70 “Natural Catastrophes in 2000”, Munich Re, 2000. http://www.munichre.com/pdf/topics_2000_high_e.pdf 71 Ibid. 72 See supra n. 70. 73 “The Dangers of Climate Change”, BBC News, 7 Aug., 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_869000/869857.stm 74 “Climate of 2000- Annual Report”, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 18, Dec., 2000, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/research/2000/preann2000/preann2000.html 75 See Supra n. 70. 76 See supra n. 73. 77 See supra n. 70. 78 “Climate-Watch, March 1999”, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 24 March 1999, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/extremes/1999/march/ extremes0399.html. 79 “Selected Global Extreme Information - Rapid Response Project: March 1999”, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 31 March 1999, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/extremes/1999/march/ rapidres0399.html. 80 See supra n. 68. 81 See supra n. 68. 82 See supra n. 68. 83 See supra n. 68. 84 See supra n. 68.

33

85 “Great natural disasters 1950-1999”, NatCatSERVICE, Munich Re, 2000. 86 Angelika Wirtz, Munich Re, Personal Communication. Monetary Values are in 2000 dollars. 87 “Annual review of natural catastrophes 1998”, Munich Re, 1999. 88 See supra n. 73. 89 The trend line represents a best fit exponential. 90 Note that this GDP adjustment was made for all natural catastrophes, not only weather-related ones. Adjustments for each event were made using GDP for the country and the year in which the catastrophe took place. Rauch, Ernst, “The influence of changes in values on the increase in losses”, Topics 2000, Munich Re Group, p. 78-81. Though the article only mentions adjustment for standard of living, in personal communication, Ernst Rauch clarifies that the adjustment for GDP adjusts for both standard of living and population growth. 91 See Supra n. 85. 92 Retallak, Simon, and Bunyard, Peter, “We’re Changing Our Climate! Who Can Doubt It?”, The Ecologist, Vol29, No. 2, March/April 1999, p. 61. 93 See supra.n. 85. 94 See supra n. 86. 95 See supra n. 76. 96 “Catastrophe Record by State 1990-2000”, Property Claim Services Report prepared for U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Property Claim Services. Note that all monetary values have been adjusted for inflation, given in 2000 dollars. 97 FEMA-Related Funds are as of December 31, 2000, and include expenditures by FEMA for specifically weather-related events, and related expenditures by the states. State expenditures are those that participate in a cost-share with certain FEMA programs, and are calculated from FEMA expenditures for those programs based on cost-share percentages provided by FEMA. FEMA-Related Funds are given by fiscal year. FSA emergency loans are as of September 30, 2000 and are given by fiscal year. USDA funds are by calendar year, and include expenses for the following weather-related programs: Feed Grain Deficiency, Emergency Conservation, Program Crops Disaster, Non-program Crops Disaster, Disaster, Non-insured Assistance Program (NAP), Disaster Reserve, American Indian-Livestock Feed, Dairy Disaster Assistance, Crop Loss Disaster Assistance, Crop Disaster Program and Fresh Market Peaches Program. Crop loss indemnity payments are as of March 11, 2001 and are given by calendar year. National Flood Insurance Program payments are as of October 31, 2000 and are given by calendar year. 98 See previous endnote. USDA funds include expenses for the following weather-related programs: Crop Disaster Program, Emergency Conservation, Livestock Emergency Assistance, Non insured Assistance Program, Pasture Recovery Program. 99 See 100 “A Responsible Energy Policy for the 21st Century”, Natural Resources Defense Council, February 2001. 101 “Pumping Up the Price: The Hidden Costts of Outdated Fuel Efficiency Standards”, Noam Mohr, October 2000, U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. 102 Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers, Series ID: CUUR0000AA0, Most Requested Series, Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls. Base Period: 1967=100. 103 Population estimates are for July 1 of each year. “State Population Estimates: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999”, U.S. Census Bureau, 29 Dec. 1999, http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/ state/st-99-3.txt. Population estimate for 2000: “US Resident Population by State Ranked: 2000 Census“, http://www.demographia.com/db-2000stater.htm