"End-to End" Climate Attribution Science Can Link Specific Companies To Climate Change Disasters

Climate attribution science is getting
more and more sophisticated. This
might make it increasingly 
possible for local governments to
recoup from climate disasters, like
this 2024 Vermont flood might
have been. 

Climate attribution studies - the art and science of determining to what extent weather extremes are tied to climate change - are getting so good that they're starting to delve into how much individual corporations are responsible for given disasters. 

This advanced work on assigning individual corporations' role in climate disasters is known as end-to-end attribution. 

For now, the focus is on heat waves, as the science doesn't appear to be quite there in assigning blame for other disasters, like floods, wildfires and hurricanes. But that's coming. 

 According to CBC:

"A new study by climate researchers in Europe and the U.S. and published in the journal Nature has taken this analysis further, by lining the deadliest type of disaster - heat waves - directly to major fossil fuel companies and their products. 

The study looked at major heat waves that happened between 2000 and 2023 and the role of 'carbon majors.'  These include state-owned companies (such as Gazprom in Russia or Saudi Armco, investor-owned private companies (Shell, BP, ExxonMoil or even Canadian companies such as Suncor and Census) and nation-states that produce fossil fuels such as coal (India, the former Soviet Union)."

 The study indicated that the median intensity of heat waves globally between 2010 and 2019 was about 1.68 degrees Celsius hotter, and 0.47 Celsius of that was due to just 14 of the largest carbon producers. 

More from CBC

"The study goes into granular detail, with data for each one of the 180 carbon majors and their specific contribution to each of the 213 heat waves studied. The detail even shows the impact of smaller companies - for example, the smallest carbon major by emissions, a Russian coal company, made 16 heat waves more than 10,000 times likely - meaning the heat waves would have been virtually impossible without the emissions of that carbon major."

The study drew on previous research detailing the lifetime carbon emissions of these carbon majors, and other studies that show how carbon emissions make heat waves worse. They then connected those two strands to estimate how the emissions of a specific carbon major impacted the severity and likelihood of a particular heat wave.

The research doesn't assign a quantity or dollar amount of heat wave damage caused by each corporation. Besides, heat waves usually don't cause much damage to buildings and infrastructure, at least compared to other disasters.

But heat waves kill a lot of people, and how do you put a price tag on that?  

Then there are practical matters. Some regions are more prepared for heat waves than others. An intense heat wave might not be as bad in, say Oklahoma, because practically everyone there has air conditioning. Air conditioning, meanwhile, is much more rare in western and northern Europe, where heat waves in recent decades have been taking an especially big toll. 

Still, this attribution science regarding climate damage caused by specific firms is probably of great interest to policymakers. 

A great example is here in Vermont. 

Vermont and New York have enacted "climate superfund" laws, which would force corporations that produce large amounts of carbon dioxide to pay a share of what climate change has cost Vermont, based on how much the company contributed to global emissions during the same period.  

Lawmakers in Vermont were prodded into enacted this legislation in part by a series of devastating floods in the state. 

Trump's Department of Justice has sued both Vermont and New York, claiming the climate superfund laws attempt to "extorts" energy producers.  

Still, if the New York and Vermont superfund laws survive the legal challenges, or we get a more climate friendly administration in the future, the research we're talking about would definitely interest people in both states. And any other jurisdiction that wants to establish similar laws. 

Beyond the United States, the International Court of Justice issued a July advisory opinion that said countries dealing with climate disasters could seek reparations from countries emitting the most carbon. 

Some legal experts said the International Court of Justice, which is under the United Nations, could spur similar moves around the world in local courts. 

Any science that would more accurately assign responsibility for climate-related disasters and expenses might favor all these laws and lawsuits.  

End-to-end attribution can boost a claimant's case, notes the Conversation. Such attribution can meet what is known as the "but for" test, which means that but for a specific company's emissions, climate related damages would not have happened.

Also, notes the Conservationist:

"One is called proportional liability, and it attempts to quantify the extent to which a company's emissions contribute d to increased risk or the severity of damage. This flexibility strengthens the method's applicability across different legal systems."

Meanwhile, climate attribution science will almost definitely continue to improve. That science is going to be a force that a lot of people in power are going to need to contend with.

Also, says the Conservationist, "The end-to-end attribution method enables claimants to connect global warming to local disasters, such as the 2021 Pacific Northwest 'heat dome'. This is crucial, as climate litigation focused on single, high-impact  events is usually more successful."

Climate attribution science is getting more and more sophisticated. This will probably change the climate legal landscape, even if the Trump administration is trying to postpone that day.  

Weather Conspiracy Theories Weirdly Gain Traction Over Reality

The tin foil hat crowd is working overtime, with so many
weather conspiracies that GOP politicians to pass
unnecessary law, and put people in unnecessary danger. 

 The weather wackos are out there. And gaining in numbers and power.

They're actually passing ridiculous laws, distracting from the big issues of the day that really need to be addressed.  

These are the people who look at all the storms, floods, wind and other weirdness out there we've had this year, and conclude some nefarious groups are controlling the weather. 

Even perfectly normal weather becomes fodder for these wackadoodle theories.  

Marjorie Taylor Greene in her usual full conspiracy mode said and has been "researching weather modification" (oh boy) and, "We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering."

Never mind that the limited attempts at things like cloud seeding and such and haven't produced any deaths or damage. Mostly because there's no weather modification going on, aside from local, small cloud seeding operations that produce sprinkles of rain.  

Still, Marjorie is  pressing on, introducing a bill that "prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature climate or sunlight intensity. It will be a felony offense."

She's got buddies in this endeavor. "Weather manipulation is real, but in the hands of our enemies or or some overlord, I think it can be a very detrimental thing. I'm big on God and just letting him work his magic and not people trying to play God," said GOP Tim Burchett, who cosponsored Greene's House bill that would ban supposed weather control.

Our friends Marjorie and Tim are  getting mocked for all this, as she always. does. Florida Democrat Care Moskowitz said on social media, "I'm introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release or dispersion of stupidity into Congress."

Yeah, good luck with that.  

CLOUD SEEDING AND TEXAS

Meanwhile retired general Mike Flynn, a former national security advisor in the first Trump administration - and also a right wing batshit conspiracy dude - n reposted another nutcase, who, in all caps of course, screamed "I NEED SOMEONE TO LOOK INTO WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. WHEN WAS THE LAST CLOUD SEEDING?"

The answer is a few days before the storm. 

Like almost all conspiracy theories, a microscopic nugget of truth begins the story for instance, in the days  before the big Texas flood, there was some cloud seeding aircraft up there, trying to produce a little rain for some places that were actually drought stricken before the flood. 

That produced isolated, small amounts of rain, as cloud seeding never creates much precipitation. Cloud seeding is arguably useful to provide some parched crops a little moisture, but it sure as hell doesn't make it pour, 

As meteorologist Matthew Cappucci explained on X, cloud seeding doesn't "create" moisture to land as rain drops. 

It just helps droplets in clouds bump into each other to form bigger drops that fall. You can't get much moisture from just a collection of clouds. 

In the Texas floods, a gigantic surge of moisture pumped very wet air and dense clouds into central Texas. That air and those clouds needed no help in producing those tragic downpours. 

Cappucci, in full snark mode, also said, "Claiming that enormous regional floods are tied to cloud seeding is like claiming an overweight individual jumping into the Pacific Ocean could cause a tsunami. Such crazy conspiracies exhibit a fundamental lack of any semblance of understanding of scale."

MORE LAWS, CONSPIRACIES

But, despite that dose of reality, it's full speed ahead with the conspiracies. 

Florida just passed through a new law that says public use airports starting in October must submit monthly reports on geoengineering and weather modification activities or lose funding. 

I'm not sure how that's going to work, because nobody at the airports or on planes who use those airports is modifying the weather, at least intentionally, but not matter. 

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier  is really into this, though, because - sigh - he appears to be one of those sad people who think contrails from jets flying overhead is trying to poison the populace for some nefarious reason. Reasons that they really have a hard time explaining, never mind providing any evidence.

Here's Uthmeier's breathless, melodramatic statement on the issue: "From farmlands to our waterways, to the very air we breath - Floridians' health is under attack from toxic particulates being sprayed into our atmosphere, polluting our water, contaminating agriculture, and destroying human health."

Uthmeier included photos of cloud streaks in his post, which were those  jet contrails. Which is water vapor caused by condensation from the exhaust from aircraft.  

Uthmeier of course also invoked Texas and cloud seeding which we've already gone over, and there's no evidence (of course!) there's no toxins from our imaginary weather modification projects in Florida. 

First of all, nobody in Florida has applied for or received a weather modification license since it became a requirement back in 1957, according to PoliFact/Poynter. In 1957 citrus growers in three Florida counties tried cloud seeding for their orchards. But apparently, it didn't work great so they gave up. 

Poynter reached out to Florida environmental officials and Uthmeier to find out whether there were any reports of unlicensed weather modification efforts but didn't hear back. 

It's not just Florida. Missouri lawmakers are considering a proposal to ban all weather modification, including cloud seeding, saying in part that humans should not "play God" with the weather. 

Then there's the fringe group that is threatening to attack and destroy Doppler weather installations around the United States. 

The group, Veterans on Patrol, somehow think that Doppler radar is some sort of "weather weapon" but don't explain how a device that just measures precipitation intensity and direction is some sort of weapon. 

Earlier this month, a man was arrested for destroying the power supply to the weather radar at television  station KWTV in Oklahoma city. 

The dude who was arrested, Anthony Tyler Mitchell, 39, is not known to be a member of Veterans on Patrol, but the crime was inspired by them, officials said. 

But, according to NBC News, the head of that group. Michael Lewis Arthur Meyer (can we add a few more names?) welcomed the Oklahoma attack. 

"When we destroy and eliminate over 15 in a state of Oklahoma, your radar maps are going to change big time, and the weather in just going to be completely different over Oklahoma and the surrounding area," he told NBC. 

Or, in reality, the weather in Oklahoma won't change, except if he succeeds, residents of the state won't know if one of the area's many tornadoes, flash floods and other weather hazards are heading their way. I guess this dude figures Oklahomans love surprises, even if they are supremely unpleasant and deadly. 

He claimed the Texas flood was an effort by the military to murder children (by catching them in a flash flood, I guess), but he offered no motive for this alleged murderous scheme. 

I'm sure Mitchell, our radar vandal, is enjoying the charges of felony malicious injury to property, burglary and damage to critical infrastructure. 

We're all laughing at the stupidity of these whack jobs, except for one thing: It's dangerous. Wired reported the head of the Texas cloud seeding company Rainmaker has received 100 death threats since the Texas flood. 

And the fact that right wind influencers, MAGA politicians and other so-called leaders keep pushing the conspiracy theories means we'll keep seeing ill-considered, waste of time laws,.

MY "CONSPIRACY THEORY"

To appease their followers, the current administration will cater to these influences as yet another convenient distraction from what really matters, and what they are really doing. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, always the good Trump minion, said he would investigate the so-called weather control that "caused" the Texas floods. 

"Americans have questions about geoengineering and contrails, They expect honesty and transparency from the government when seeking answers, For years, people who asked questions in good faith were dismissed, even vilified by the media and and their own government. That ends today," Zeldin sanctimonious declared recently. 

So, they'll find some innocent scapegoat to prosecute, like that cloud seeding company that might have caused a few sprinkles of rain a few days before  and 120 miles away from the Texas flood scene.

There always were and always will be gullible people who get taken in by the wildest stories. And there will be always grifter who take advantage of these gullible people, 

Which is what's going on,

Humans are modifying the weather in one big way: Climate change. As everyone in the real world knows, all that fossil fuel we've been burning for the past century or two has modified the climate and thus the weather. 

Heat waves are hotter, rainstorms are wetter and powerful storms are more powerful. 

As the Washington Post puts it, "....extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent because of human-caused climate change. Some long-term deniers of that well-established process have been more likely to blame chemtrails or cloud seeding than to reconsider the climate-altering effects of fossil fuel emissions."

My conspiracy theory - and I actually thing it makes a bit of sense - is that the fossil fuel industry will do anything to protect their business. 

Distract the public with bogus "theories" and they can keep pumping those greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Which worsens the climate, and creates more extreme weather. Rinse and repeat. 

There's more than enough gullible people to keep this scam going.  

Trump Executive Order Targets Vermont "Climate Superfund" Law

One of Donald Trump's zillions of executive orders 
specifically targets "climate superfund" laws in
Vermont and New York, but whether the order has
any legal teeth is entirely another question. 

To nobody's surprise and to lots of eye rolling in Vermont, Donald Trump released an executive order targeting the state's climate superfund law.  

Trump says the law "extorts" energy producers. 

The law would work much like the federal Superfund law that's been around for decades. 

Under the Vermont climate superfund law, a company that produces large amounts of carbon dioxide would have to pay a share of what climate change has cost Vermont, based on how much the company contributed to global emissions during the same period

Not long after Vermont adopted its climate superfund law, New York followed suit with a similar law. Trump's executive order takes aim at both states.

Trump's characteristically whiny order states:

"New York, for example, a 'climate change' extortion law that seeks to retroactively impose billions in fines (erroneously labelled 'compensatory payments') on traditional energy producers for their purported past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions not only in New York but also anywhere in the United States and the world.

Vermont similarly extorts energy producers for alleged past contributions to greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the United States or the globe."

That's not quite right because the laws do take into account the targeted companies' overall emissions, the laws only seek to receive compensation for the expense of climate change in those states. 

The executive  order is not just about New York and Vermont and their climate superfund laws. 

Per Vermont Public: 

"The document broadly seeks to restrict states' abilities to set local energy policy, particularly policies that support climate action or renewables like solar and wind, or that impeded the development of new domestic energy sources."

With his executive order, Trump is sticking his nose into something that is already being litigated through the courts. 

The fossil fuel industry is already suing Vermont and New York regarding this law. In a normal world, without Trump, this would be litigated through the courts to determine whether these climate superfund laws are constitutional or not. 

But that's not the world we live in now. King Trump, or so he thinks can just wave his magic orange wand and everybody will just bend to his will.

Until they don't. 

Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, of one, is unimpressed. 

She told Vermont Public that Trump's order has no legal teeth and as no bearing on Vermont's enforcement of its own laws.

"The president has a lot of power; he does not have the extent of the power  he wishes he had, which is why we see all these executive order that say a lot of words but don't actually do anything.....And this is another one of those examples."

Clark felt compelled to offer this basic elementary school civics lesson to Trump:

"Congress passes the laws. The executive branch, the president, carries out the instructions of Congress, and it's the courts that get to interpret the laws."

There are legitimate legal questions about the Climate Superfund laws, such as whether it interferes with interstate commerce.  The fossil fuel industry also questions whether companies should be held responsible for the actions of society at large. 

Under the executive order, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has about two months to simple a report and recommend actions to prevent states from engaging in climate policy she deems illegal.

Again, that's really up to the courts and not Bondi or Trump to decide. We hope. But there will be court appeals, no matter what happens. 

The fossil fuel industry is not just relying on the courts.  It appears that Trump's executive order has to do with a meeting oil executive had with Trump earlier this year. In that meeting, they asked Trump for help in fighting the Vermont and New York climate superfund laws, as the Washington Post reported in March. 

Apparently, the oil executives got what they wanted.    

Vermont Governor Trying To Scale Back Climate Initiatives

Flooding in Richmond, Vermont, July, 2023. Climate driven
disasters are increasing costing Vermonters a lot of money.
Efforts to combat greenhouse emissions also cost 
money, leading to political tension in Montpelier. 

 Vermont Gov. Phil Scott is a Republican, but he's by no means a Trump Republican

In fact, the two men do not get along with each other, at least based on Scott's past comments about the current president. 

Trump hates any efforts to fight climate change, as he considers the science a hoax.

Scott thinks climate change is a real thing, so I guess he's certain hurdled that low bar. The Vermont governor also thinks we should act to combat climate change. But it appears he thinks we've gone to far with that project. At least for now. 

As WCAX reports: 

"Gov. Phil Scott wants Vermont lawmakers to change course on fighting climate change and proposes lawmakers roll back mandates to decarbonize. For the governor, it's all about affordability. What state lawmakers choose to do or not to do will have a direct effect on what Vermonters may pay for heating oil, electric rates and more.

Environmental advocates are sounding the alarm over what they see as the state walking back on a commitment to the climate and the future."

"We say no to these rollbacks because it is a moral imperative,' said Laura Zakaras of Third Act Vermont."

Scott has long opposed some if not all the climate initiatives passed in recent years by the Vermont legislature. Democrats had a super majority, which meant anything they passed was veto-proof. So the Democrats in recent years passed a flurry of anti-climate change legislation. 

In November, Republicans made gains in the legislature, so now Scott has more power to oppose Democrats. And try to roll back some of the more ambitious climate initiatives now enshrined intoVermont law. 

It's not that Scott doesn't want to combat climate change. He does. He's seen first hand how climate-worsened disasters have made life harder for Vermonters in recent years. His tack is to develop a plan of his own to deal with climate change. 

Per VTDigger:

"'We agree on the need to reduce emissions,' Scott said when announcing the proposal at a January 30 press conference. 'But we need to be realistic about what we can do and make sure we're on a timely that makes sense, and doesn't harm Vermonters financially as a result."

One law is troublesome for both Scott, and the actual deadlines in the statute The Global Warming Solutions Act sets deadlines to reduce climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, 2030 and 2050. That Democratic legislature overrode Scott's veto of the bill in 2020.

This Global Warming Solutions Act requires a lot of self-discipline, accountability and creativity in Vermont for it to work and signs are we might not have enough oomph to comply with it. 

There's no plan in place that would satisfy the 2030 deadline, and that could get messy. Here's why, as VTDigger reports:

"A specific measure within the law, called a legal 'cause of action,' allows citizens to sue the Agency of Natural Resources if the state isn't on track to meet its deadlines. The Conservation Law Foundation has already filed a lawsuit challenging the Agency of Natural Resources' projection that it will meet the 2025 deadline."

A Republican sponsored bill would get rid of the part of this statute that allows those lawsuits if Vermont doesn't meet those emissions deadlines. 

This is all just another example of how hard it really is to reduce emissions and combat climate change. It's costly now, and people living pay check to pay check don't have the means to pay higher taxes, or inflationary costs on other goods, like fuel, if that's what the emissions rules.

Then again, if nobody contributes to cutting emissions, it's more costly for all of us down the road. Climate change is kind of a lose/lose in that regard.   

We don't know what will happen this legislative session, of course.  Fighting climate change is a hard enough fight in tiny little localities like Vermont. 

No consider doing this on a global scale

It's daunting. 

   

 

And there's the tension that always seems to come in these potential expensive ways to deal with climate change.

It's kind of pay now or pay later. with even well-meaning 

  

  

 

Aesthetics Matter More Than Safety/Staying Alive During Summer Heat Waves, Say Some Building Managers

Window air conditioners like this one on my house aren't
exactly pretty, but they can be life saving to some during
intense heat waves. Residents, lawmakers in various
parts of the nation are rebelling against landlord
issued window air conditioning bans. 

As we move into the hot months of summer,  I'm seeing a smattering of reports around the nation of apartment building managers bent on making their tenants broil in dangerous heat.  

The reason: The buildings need to look pretty, even if it means some people die of heat stroke or something. 

This involves apartment buildings or rental houses without central air. People in those cases resort to window mounted air conditions to get them through heat waves. 

In addition to aesthetics, building managers cite supposed safety issues. As if there were a sudden epidemic of air conditioners falling from windows, kind of like the constant rain of Acme-brand anvils smashing down on Wily E. Coyote.  

Examples are cropping up everywhere. In torrid San Antonio, residents of a mobile home park were told they can no longer have air conditioners in their windows.  Not sure what the residents are supposed to do when the Texas summer sun hits those tin can homes, but whatever. 

In equally hot Denton, Texas, a 600 unit mobile home park also banned window air conditioners. Central air is allowed, but many residents can't afford that. 

In South Portland, Maine, managers of an apartment building this spring abruptly told residents that window air conditioners are now banned, says television station WGME.

This particular apartment building tends to heat up big time in the summer. One resident said on a recent day when temperatures outdoors were in the low 60s, the temperature in their apartment reached 81 degrees.

Residents were told that window air conditioners are a safety and liability worry. "Why are they all of a sudden worried now, when there's never been an accident where one fell out," resident Anthony Nizza said. 

People who live in the apartment block can use portable air conditioners but they are much expensive to operate and not as effective as window units. One resident said the cost of operating a portable unit is twice that of a window air conditioner. 

Following complaints, operators of the South Portland apartment building will allow window units this summer only if brackets are installed.  Next year, no window units.

Some states and municipalities are fighting back. 

After an extreme, deadly heat wave in 2021, Oregon legislators passed a law ordering landlords to allow window air conditioners. 

Lawmakers too action after residents complained that landlords weren't allowing air conditioners as temperatures inside homes reached a dangerous 100 degrees. 

There are loopholes in the Oregon law. . Landlords could claim the air conditioners are overloading the building electrical system. Or they could be banned from historic buildings.

Same issue seems to be brewing in Spokane, Washington. There, the City Council is considering an ordinance that would forbid landlords from banning tenants from installing air conditioning in Spokane rental at any time when the National Weather Service issues a heat alert. 

It has happened. The Seattle Times reports that the nonprofit Spokane Neighborhood Action Partners have ordered the removal of air conditioning units in one apartment complex due to liability worries. 

Even if the ordinance is enacted, landlords would surely find loopholes. For instance, a common lease provision bars tenants from altering a rental unit without permission. Or do things that make the landlord pay an increased electricity bill. Those rules could effectively ban window air conditioners. 

I get it. Window air conditioners aren't necessarily the prettiest things in the world. But as heat waves worsen and lengthy under the strength of climate change, these ugly little boxes will more often become lifesaving devices. 

 

Greenhouse Gas Smuggling? It's A Thing

   There's now a global treaty to ban HFCs, a 
chemical for air conditioners and refrigerators
because they are extremely potent greenhouse
gases. But illegal smuggling of this gas
is a thing, and a subject of crackdowns

 We've all heard of smuggling migrants, drugs, contraband, what have you across the U.S./Mexican border.  

But greenhouse gases?

It's a thing. Who knew?

The U.S. Justice Department tells us Michael Hart, 58, of San Diego has become the first person prosecuted under a 2020 federal law aimed at phasing out a terribly potent greenhouse gas. 

Prosecutors said Hart purchased this stuff in Mexico,  hit it under a tarp and tools in his truck, then sold the gases online at places like Facebook Marketplace and OfferUp.   

No, Hart wasn't somehow selling carbon dioxide or methane, which hardly anybody would want to buy anyway. 

It was stuff called hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs which are used big time in air conditioning and refrigeration. Or at least they were until recently, when it became clear this gas was worsening climate change. 

THE BACKGROUND

Back in the day, another chemical, chlorofluorocarbon, or CFCs were used in air conditioning and refrigeration and stuff like that.  But CFS were found to be wrecking the ozone layer, especially above the South Pole. 

That put humans at higher risk of illnesses like skin cancer and cataracts, and also messed with the ecosystem. So, in the late 1980s, in a rare model of global cooperation, the Montreal Protocol was enacted, which banned the worldwide use of CFS.

The Montreal Protocol worked: The Ozone Layer has been repairing itself ever since this international treaty went into effect. 

We still needed air conditioning and refrigeration and such, so it was on to the HFCs, which were widely used in the 1980s and 1990s.

But oops! HFCs turn out to be an incredibly potent greenhouse gas.  It's 1,000 times more effective at trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere than that old stuff that was destroying the Ozone Layer. Also about 1,000 times worse than carbon dioxide for doing the same thing. 

So the United States banned HFCs and signed on to an amended to the international Montreal Protocol, called the Kigali Amendment. 

Getting rid of HFCs is another rare moment of agreement. Business interests like it because they feel it will make the United States more competitive in a global economy. (We're manufacturing alternatives to HFCs)  Environmentalists like the ban on this stuff because, well, climate change. 

There's always holdouts, though, which brings us back to the smuggling. 

The United Nations Environment Program says an illicit trade in HFCs spans the globe, as I guess there's still a lot of demand to repair existing refrigerators and air conditioners using this gas.  The European Union over the years has seized hundreds of metric tons of HFCs, Chemical and Engineering News reported back in 2021.

Organized crime groups do most of the smuggling because HFCs are often more profitable than illicit drugs.

Of course, the U.S. Justice Department's prosecution of a HFC smuggler is welcome and I hope for more such actions.  But the problem probably won't fade away until appliances and machinery using HFCs wear out to the point they have to be replaced.

Those replacements will mostly use safer substances that don't add much added risk to the climate. 

Until I suppose they find something wrong with the new stuff, too. 

Paradise Lost And Found? Struggles Five Years Since Deadly Fire Wiped Out California Town

Five years after a deadly wildfire destroyed the town of
Paradise, California, the town is still rebuilding, but is
facing financial and insurance headwinds. 

 Hard to believe but it's been five years this week since one of the worst wildfires in U.S. history destroyed the town of Paradise, California, claiming 85 lives.  

In just a day or so, the fire leveled almost every house and business in town.- about 18,000 of them.  You still might remember horrifying videos from that day of people desperately trying to drive through flames and zero-visibility smoke to escape the conflagration. 

So how's the town doing now?

It is bouncing back, but it's also a grim reminder of how long it takes to recover from a mega-disaster like this. That fact has resonance here in Vermont, as we continue to recover from the dramatic, highly destructive floods we had this summer. 

In the age of climate change, these weather disasters are coming at us much more frequently than ever before.  We'll have a lot of balls in the air trying to recover from just one disaster. Now imagine how stretched thin emergency managers, insurers, planners, builders, homeowners and business people are. 

In Paradise, California right now, KCRA says 21 percent of the homes have been rebuilt, and another 1,000 or so are under construction. 

Paradise has technically been the fastest growing municipality in California for the past two years. But that's starting from almost zero, and they've reached the peak of the rebuilding effort.

As you can imagine, it's been incredibly expensive. KCRA said the Fire Victim Trust, created in July, 2020, has issued determination notices on 98 percent of claims and has paid $10.7 billion to victims so far. 

The Fire Victim Trust was created by the electric utility PG&E as part of a legal settlement. The utility was blamed for the fire because one of its power lines is believe to have snapped, sparking the blaze on that windy, super dry November 8, 2018.

Many victims are saying the settlements are inadequate and have not allowed them to even partially recover financially from the blaze. 

Even worse, homeowners insurance in Paradise is unaffordable.  This is an increasing problem in disaster-prone areas like Florida. Insurers say they can't keep taking the losses from this increasing onslaught of disasters.  I think any disaster-prone region of the nation is now prone to newly sky high insurance rates, so be forewarned. 

In Paradise, the Associated Press said some homeowners who used to face roughly $1,500 in annual insurance premiums now have $10,000 annual fees. People can't afford that, so they're not rebuilding. Or, if they don't have a mortgage, they're taking their chances and not acquiring homeowners' insurance, which is a really risky move. 

The higher insurance rates are happening despite stringent new building codes to help prevent future disasters. 

A DIFFERENT PARADISE

By necessity, Paradise is shaping up to look a lot different than it did before the fire. 

The town's newspaper, The Paradise Post, announced sweeping building code changes enacted by the Town Council in May, 2022:

"The first change would require that only non-combustible material be allowed within five feet of any building or structure. It would also outlaw any vegetation within five feet of the structure, including the overhang. The ordinance calls for removing any overhanging limbs or branches within five feet of the structure.  It would also regulate all exterior walls to have six inches of noncombustible vertical clearance from grade."

These extensive regulations would also outlaw any vegetation or the storage of combustible material beneath decks and porches. Mesh covering vents in roofs and walls must have openings of an eighth inch or less to prevent embers from slipping into attics. Combustible fencing material must also not come within five feet of a home or building. 

 Paradise officials also are installing 21 warning sirens around town that would serve much like tornado warning sirens in the Midwest, reports Fire Engineering.  Except these sirens will sound a warning, and then be followed by evacuation instructions. That's a quick way to get people heading quickly in the right direction away from danger. 

Fire Engineering compares the new siren system to the chaotic day in 2018 when the wildfire blasted through town. : 

"Many residents said they received no warning on their cellphones or landlines as the fire quickly spread their way. They jumped in their vehicles to escape only after seeing smoke and flames, or after relatives or neighbors knocked on their doors.

'If that fire would have happened just a few hours earlier than it did, we would have had hundreds of people die from that because they'd been in Bed,' (Paradise Mayor Greg ) Bolin said."

Of course, officials have to decide to activate the sirens. During Maui's deadly fires this summer, people report that sirens did not go off.

The long list of fire prevention rules and ordinances in Paradise are starting to be emulated by other wildfire-prone communities. Climate change does seem to be making wildfires, well, wilder. They spread faster, burn hotter, last long and display extreme behavior.  

Like it or not, communities through the United States - throughout the world, really - are all trying to adapt to climate change. We see it again and again.

Few experts think humans can completely adapt ourselves out of the consequences of climate change. There's just too much going on at once. And what's going on is often too extreme to adapt to. Sure, you can enact fire codes that help protect lives and property in big wildfires. But the wildfires are too big for those measures to keep people completely safe. 

We can buy out homes and properties, enlarge culverts and build stronger bridges in places like here in Vermont that are particularly susceptible to floods, but these extreme floods have a tendency to find new victims as the storms get worse and worse. 

It's a race between human engineering and climate change disasters. One that will continue for the foreseeable future. 

Back in Paradise, California, they held a series of events this week to mark the five year anniversary of the firestorm. That included 85 seconds of silence for the 85 victims of the blaze. 

Mercifully, the start of the rainy season has already provided the forests around Paradise a bit of rain. A moderately heavy rain storm is the forecast for the region for this upcoming week. There's no fires burning and the risk of one starting is on the low side. 

It's another reprieve for Paradise. But the town will be tested again with future fires. We hope they'll get through those fine. 

 

Amazon Won't Build Storm Shelters In Warehouses

This Amazon warehouse in Edwardsville, Illinois was
destroyed by a December 10, 2021 tornado, killing 6
people, This tragedy is prompting debate on'
tornado safety in structures like this 

In the wake of a 2021 tornado that killed six workers at an Amazon warehouse in Illinois, the giant firm said they will not construct special tornado safe rooms in their warehouse. 

As CNBC reports, this comes in response to inquiries from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY and Rep. Cori Bush, D-MO seeking more information on Amazon's plans to rebuild the Edwardsville, Illinois warehouse and questioning why it didn't have a safe room or storm shelter on site.  

Buildings like warehouse, gymnasiums, large school cafeterias, shopping malls and big box retail stores are especially dangerous in tornadoes. Their roofs are supported only by exterior walls, so these structure are prone to collapse in tornadoes and other severe storms.

True to form, the December 10, 2021 tornado in Edwardsville caused much of the Amazon warehouse roof to fall in, which in turn caused the building's 11-inch thick exterior walls to collapse inward. That's what killed the six workers. 

The walls collapsed onto a rest room where the six workers tried to take shelter. Other workers who fled to a designated storm safe room survived. the lawmakers. 

The Amazon warehouse tornado in Edwardville, Illinois on December 10, 2021 was part of a large outbreak of twisters that put the spotlight on tornado workplace safety. 

An even larger, more powerful tornado struck the town of Mayfield, Kentucky that night.  That long-tracked tornado killed 76 people, including nine people who were working at a candle factory in Mayfield. 

Shortly after the tornado, workers at the Mayfield factory said managers did not allow them to leave the facility ahead of the tornado to seek safer shelters in the basements of their nearby homes. 

Lawmakers and safety advocates are still thinking about tornado safety in warehouses and similar structures, which prompted the recent letter from 

According to CNBC:

"Amazon said in its responses that it follows guidelines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Weather Service, and will continue to maintain a severe weather assembly area for workers to shelter in place. 

OSHA guidelines say that basements, storm cellars or small interior rooms provide the best protection from a tornado. But the federal government doesn't require specially built storm shelters in warehouses." 

For what it's worth, OSHA finished an investigation into the Amazon tornado deaths last April. The agency did not levy any fines or penalties against Amazon. They did order it review its severe weather policies. 

CNBC said that after the fatal tornado, Amazon hired a meteorologist, created new emergency badge cards informing workers of evacuation points and assembly areas, and launched an internal center for monitoring and communication severe weather.

The lawmakers who wrote to Amazon are still dissatisfied. 

"Amazon's apparent unwillingness to invest in a storm shelter or safe room at its Edwardsville facility is made even worse concerning by the fact that installing one could be done by Amazon at relatively low cost," they wrote. 

Generally speaking, states and the federal government don't require special tornado safety rooms in warehouses.

Still, the December, 2021 tornado deaths at the Amazon warehouse are prompting renewed interest in storm safety in this type of building. 

A task force in Illinois is about to start work on recommendations for these facilities, according to St. Louis Public Radio. 

"The fact that we had such a tragic result makes me wonder if we don't need to look at those building codes and see that maybe Illinois needs to go above and beyond what's already expected," said Illinois State Rep. Katie Stuart, D-Edwardsville, as STLPR reports.

Stuart will be among those sitting on the task force, which is due to issue its final report by January 1, 2025.

Amazon is facing lawsuits over the tornado deaths in the Edwardsville warehouse. That structure is currently being rebuilt. 

 

Public Service Announcement: Get The Damn Snow/Ice Off Your Car

This truck windshield in North Conway, New Hampshire was
smashed because the motorist in front of them didn't 
bother cleaning a layer of ice from their SUV. The 
ice broke free and smashed this windshield 

 If you have not already done so, please do this common courtesy: Get as much snow and ice off your car as you can. 

This should be obvious, but it's not. In New Hampshire yesterday, more than at 20 cars were damaged when snow and ice blew off other vehicles and slammed into windshields.

I've seen in the past couple of days a foot or more of snow on car roofs, trailing a blizzard of snow to blind motorists behind them. 

  I've also seen idiots with a big pile of snow on their car roof, then hit the brakes.  Physics being physics, all the snow then slides onto the windshield, completely obscuring it. 

Or, people just carve a small hole in the ice caking windshields instead of all the glass on the car. Then they wonder why they can't seen anything. Vermont State Police tweeted an example of that back in mid-January, complete with a photo of a "peekaboo" windshield covered in ice, except for a small porthole. 

The person driving this car through
Jericho, Vermont in January received
a $105 ticket for this "peekaboo windshield"

That motorist received a $105 ticket. 

New Hampshire has a law saying you must clear all the snow and ice from your car.  Vermont does not have such a law. 

The $105 ticket I referenced above was because the windshield was obscured.  Had the motorist cleared the windshield but not the hood and roof, they might have gotten away with no ticket.

However, if there's snow and ice on your car and it flies off and damaged another vehicle or God forbid hurts somebody, you're in trouble. You might well be facing a felony in those situations. 

This rant probably won't get the attention of the idiots who don't clear their cars, but a guy's gotta try anyway.  I mean, really.  There was close to a foot and a half of snow on my truck yesterday and it took me 10 minutes to clean it off. 

Plus another five to shovel out the truck bed. Pro tip: If you don't shovel out the truck bed, the cars behind you get a blizzard and your rear window gets covered in slush. 

So please, be nice.  Clean off your vehicle after every snow and ice storm.