Latest news with #NCEI
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Climate
- Yahoo
Timeline: El Paso faces record dust storms in 2025, worst since 1936 Dust Bowl
Dust storms in the Borderland are nothing new, but the severity of the weather events and their frequency have worsened, statistics note. Thomas Gill, professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the University of Texas at El Paso, noted that the recent dust storms have underscored a paradigm shift in how they impact the city. According to Gill, a bevy of inauspicious milestones have already been reached with these storms, which started in the region in March. They include: The last time there have been this many dust storms in El Paso in an entire year was 1936, during the Dust Bowl, which engulfed large swaths of Mid-America and Texas According to data compiled by Gill, El Paso had its windiest March, when this year's dust storms started, since 1964 There have already been over 26 recorded dust storms, as of April. El Paso typically only averages 22 the entire year. More on recent dust storms in El Paso Wind back in El Paso, New Mexico on Sunday. Expect low visibility, blowing dust Black Sunday: On April 14, 1935, Texas and Oklahoma faced the infamous Dust Bowl. Conditions exacerbated by record drought across the nation and high winds led to dust storms on unprecedented levels. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information noted that 300,000 tons of topsoil were displaced from the prairie area. That was part of a series of dust storms that impacted western Kansas, eastern Colorado, northeastern New Mexico, and the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles. The destruction caused by the dust storms, and especially by the storm on Black Sunday, killed multiple people and was the catalyst for the Soil Conservation Act of 1936 by the federal government. The Southern San Joaquin Valley Dust Storm: Also known as the Great Bakersfield Dust Storm of 1977, it started in the late evening on Dec. 19, 1977, and ended in the afternoon of Dec. 21. It resulted in five deaths and $40 million in damages. Historic records by the NCEI noted that over 25 million cubic feet of topsoil from grazing land alone was moved. Wind was measured at 192 miles per hour in areas of California. In the foothills of the state, the wind was measured at 189 miles per hour. Texas Dust Storms of 1965: In what was considered the most severe dust storm in recent Texas history, Lubbock saw wind gusts up to 75 miles per hour with dust blowing as high as 31,000 feet. Reports stated the rain gauge at Reese Air Force Base in Lubbock contains 3 inches of fine sand. Visibility was reduced to 100 yards. Another dust storm occurred in 1977 and destroyed millions of dollars worth of winter wheat and injured 20 people in El Paso. While the 1965 dust storm was blamed on severe drought conditions, another similar drought happened in 1970. More on El Paso dust storm deaths Dust storm, speeding factors in fatal truck crash in Northeast El Paso Kristian Jaime is the top story reporter for the El Paso Times and is reachable at Kjaime@ This article originally appeared on El Paso Times: Timeline: El Paso faces record dust storms, worst since 1936 Dust Bowl
Boston Globe
09-04-2025
- Climate
- Boston Globe
Most of Massachusetts pulls out of severe drought. Boston area, Cape rainfall still lags.
Just February and March averaged 7.34 inches of precipitation statewide, which was slightly above the average of 7.28 inches, according to NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Related : Advertisement However, the state's Drought Management Task Force said eastern Mass. is still lagging. Cape Cod and the islands, however, have been 40 percent below average in precipitation since October and remain in a 'significant drought.' Boston and areas north and west of the city (Middlesex and Essex counties) that were in 'critical drought' have been downgraded to 'significant drought' status, according to the task force. Those regions have had a precipitation deficit of 8 inches since Sept. 1, according to NCEI data. Meteorologically, we have had significantly less precipitation since mid-August last year. As a result, the Advertisement Much of New England remains in a moderate drought, according to the US Drought Monitor. Boston Globe At its worst, the drought had Marianne Mizera can be reached at
Forbes
24-03-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Why Climate Action Matters While Putting America First
Solar energy panels before a nuclear power plant and wind turbines at sunset We are witnessing a sweeping shift in the fight against climate change as the current administration dismantles science-based environmental initiatives, instead prioritizing what it calls "America's energy potential." This policy reversal has earned the United States the dubious distinction of being the only country to withdraw from international climate action agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord. The pace of these changes has been relentless: references to climate change have been wiped from government websites, grants supporting clean energy and transportation initiatives have been canceled, and environmental regulations have been systematically rolled back. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), historically tasked with protecting human health and the environment, is now pivoting toward massive deregulation. EPA Administrator Zeldin has characterized this shift as "driving a dagger straight into the heart of climate change." Among the casualties are the EPA's Clean Power Plan 2.0, designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the endangerment finding stemming from the 2007 Supreme Court's decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In essence, the EPA's mission has been redefined from ensuring clean air, land, and water for Americans to eliminating the very regulations instrumental for ensuring its original charter. In this rapidly evolving landscape—where "drill, baby, drill" is the new mantra—businesses face a critical dilemma: Should they abandon their climate initiatives in response to policy changes, or should they stay the course? For some, the retreat has been swift. Numerous companies across the technology, energy, and food sectors have quietly rescinded their climate commitments, rolling back policies that once promoted sustainability. But should you follow suit? Scientific consensus is clear: unchecked climate change presents a profound threat to economic growth and national security. Over a decade ago, the Department of Defense warned that climate change would exacerbate natural disasters, refugee crises, and resource conflicts. A 2024 assessment report from the World Economic Forum highlights climate risks to business profitability due to damages to fixed assets, and disruptions to supply chains. These warnings are now a reality. Zurich Insurance Group reports that in 2023 alone, global natural disasters caused $380 billion in economic losses. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) shows that since 1980, the U.S. has suffered 403 weather-related disasters, each causing over billion dollars in damage. It is worth noting that before 1980, there were only three such billion-dollar events. Ironically, the NCEI—tasked with providing up-to-date data for businesses to make informed, sustainable decisions—has now been deemed non-essential by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Many of its employees have been terminated, and its offices slated for closure. Businesses now face tough choices. How to stay the course in the absence of regulatory pressure critical for collective action to combat climate change. Other may grapple with how to live up to their climate pledges while also being compliant with rules and regulations in this ever-changing landscape. The current landscape, while challenging, has a surprising silver lining. It affords businesses with some breathing space. It is a gift of time that is free from expectations of stakeholders such as customers demanding sustainable products, or activist shareholders demanding rapid decarbonization, or legislators demanding mandatory disclosures. This is the moment to move beyond symbolic gestures and commit to genuine climate action. Greenwashing—the practice of misleading consumers about environmental efforts—was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld nearly 40 years ago, when hotels promoted towel reuse as an environmental initiative while primarily aiming to cut costs. Since then, greenwashing has been enthusiastically adopted by businesses so much so that two-thirds of surveyed US executives admitted to engaging in greenwashing. A European Commission study found that over half of corporate sustainability claims are vague or misleading, while 40% completely lack any supporting evidence. This practice is no longer just unethical—it's financially risky. Stricter consumer protection laws worldwide mean businesses face mounting scrutiny and potential legal repercussions for deceptive claims. Additionally, social media amplifies reputational risks, making it easier for stakeholders to expose and publicize corporate hypocrisy. Research indicates that the resulting brand damage can have long-term consequences. Now is the time to eliminate greenwashing from your business model and thus reverse drain on resources while reducing the risk of alienating stakeholders. Businesses worldwide have made bold commitments to climate action, but many struggle with developing concrete plans. A UK study found that while over 80% of FTSE 100 companies have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, only 5% have publicly disclosed their transition strategies. A 2022 survey of 400 business leaders suggest that despite good intentions, there is a genuine struggle in aligning priorities. Balancing short-term financial pressures with long-term climate goals requires strategic thinking. Furthermore, companies lack critical competencies and metrics for measuring progress. Developing sustainability competencies goes beyond investing in technical expertise; it demands a mindset shift—one that places value in understanding the risk and opportunities posed by climate change and a willingness to do something about it. In a time of unprecedented change, taking a slow systematic approach may seem counter intuitive. Due to the very nature of policy turbulence in today's context, stakeholders are unlikely to hold businesses accountable for doing an intentional reset on its climate plans. Knee-jerk reactions aimed at appeasing stakeholders can backfire, raising questions about whether initiatives are genuine or simply for show. According to PwC's 2024 study, a new generation of investors—set to benefit from intergenerational transfer of wealth to the tune of $68 trillion over the next decade—prioritizes brands at the intersection of disruptive technology and climate action. For these investors, integrity and transparency are not marketing buzzwords but essential business principles. Climate change is an inconvenient truth that cannot be ignored or denied. Business leaders need to recognize that their actions—or inactions—will determine the severity of its impact in the years to come. Climate action and economic prosperity are not divergent paths and businesses can thrive when we the people and our environment thrive together.
Forbes
23-03-2025
- Business
- Forbes
America First At The Cost Of Climate Action. A Cautionary Note For Business
Solar energy panels before a nuclear power plant and wind turbines at sunset We are witnessing a sweeping shift in the fight against climate change as the current administration dismantles science-based environmental initiatives, instead prioritizing what it calls "America's energy potential." This policy reversal has earned the United States the dubious distinction of being the only country to withdraw from international climate action agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord. The pace of these changes has been relentless: references to climate change have been wiped from government websites, grants supporting clean energy and transportation initiatives have been canceled, and environmental regulations have been systematically rolled back. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), historically tasked with protecting human health and the environment, is now pivoting toward massive deregulation. EPA Administrator Zeldin has characterized this shift as "driving a dagger straight into the heart of climate change." Among the casualties are the EPA's Clean Power Plan 2.0, designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the endangerment finding stemming from the 2007 Supreme Court's decision that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In essence, the EPA's mission has been redefined from ensuring clean air, land, and water for Americans to eliminating the very regulations instrumental for ensuring its original charter. In this rapidly evolving landscape—where "drill, baby, drill" is the new mantra—businesses face a critical dilemma: Should they abandon their climate initiatives in response to policy changes, or should they stay the course? For some, the retreat has been swift. Numerous companies across the technology, energy, and food sectors have quietly rescinded their climate commitments, rolling back policies that once promoted sustainability. But should you follow suit? Scientific consensus is clear: unchecked climate change presents a profound threat to economic growth and national security. Over a decade ago, the Department of Defense warned that climate change would exacerbate natural disasters, refugee crises, and resource conflicts. A 2024 assessment report from the World Economic Forum highlights climate risks to business profitability due to damages to fixed assets, and disruptions to supply chains. These warnings are now a reality. Zurich Insurance Group reports that in 2023 alone, global natural disasters caused $380 billion in economic losses. Data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) shows that since 1980, the U.S. has suffered 403 weather-related disasters, each causing over billion dollars in damage. It is worth noting that before 1980, there were only three such billion-dollar events. Ironically, the NCEI—tasked with providing up-to-date data for businesses to make informed, sustainable decisions—has now been deemed non-essential by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Many of its employees have been terminated, and its offices slated for closure. Businesses now face tough choices. How to stay the course in the absence of regulatory pressure critical for collective action to combat climate change. Other may grapple with how to live up to their climate pledges while also being compliant with rules and regulations in this ever-changing landscape. The current landscape, while challenging, has a surprising silver lining. It affords businesses with some breathing space. It is a gift of time that is free from expectations of stakeholders such as customers demanding sustainable products, or activist shareholders demanding rapid decarbonization, or legislators demanding mandatory disclosures. This is the moment to move beyond symbolic gestures and commit to genuine climate action. Greenwashing—the practice of misleading consumers about environmental efforts—was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld nearly 40 years ago, when hotels promoted towel reuse as an environmental initiative while primarily aiming to cut costs. Since then, greenwashing has been enthusiastically adopted by businesses so much so that two-thirds of surveyed US executives admitted to engaging in greenwashing. A European Commission study found that over half of corporate sustainability claims are vague or misleading, while 40% completely lack any supporting evidence. This practice is no longer just unethical—it's financially risky. Stricter consumer protection laws worldwide mean businesses face mounting scrutiny and potential legal repercussions for deceptive claims. Additionally, social media amplifies reputational risks, making it easier for stakeholders to expose and publicize corporate hypocrisy. Research indicates that the resulting brand damage can have long-term consequences. Now is the time to eliminate greenwashing from your business model and thus reverse drain on resources while reducing the risk of alienating stakeholders. Businesses worldwide have made bold commitments to climate action, but many struggle with developing concrete plans. A UK study found that while over 80% of FTSE 100 companies have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, only 5% have publicly disclosed their transition strategies. A 2022 survey of 400 business leaders suggest that despite good intentions, there is a genuine struggle in aligning priorities. Balancing short-term financial pressures with long-term climate goals requires strategic thinking. Furthermore, companies lack critical competencies and metrics for measuring progress. Developing sustainability competencies goes beyond investing in technical expertise; it demands a mindset shift—one that places value in understanding the risk and opportunities posed by climate change and a willingness to do something about it. In a time of unprecedented change, taking a slow systematic approach may seem counter intuitive. Due to the very nature of policy turbulence in today's context, stakeholders are unlikely to hold businesses accountable for doing an intentional reset on its climate plans. Knee-jerk reactions aimed at appeasing stakeholders can backfire, raising questions about whether initiatives are genuine or simply for show. According to PwC's 2024 study, a new generation of investors—set to benefit from intergenerational transfer of wealth to the tune of $68 trillion over the next decade—prioritizes brands at the intersection of disruptive technology and climate action. For these investors, integrity and transparency are not marketing buzzwords but essential business principles. Climate change is an inconvenient truth that cannot be ignored or denied. Business leaders need to recognize that their actions—or inactions—will determine the severity of its impact in the years to come. Climate action and economic prosperity are not divergent paths and businesses can thrive when we the people and our environment thrive together.
Axios
13-03-2025
- Science
- Axios
Scoop: NOAA monthly media calls on climate change suspended
Monthly press calls featuring NOAA scientists detailing global climate conditions during the previous month have been suspended indefinitely, the agency told Axios. Why it matters: While the data is still being provided publicly, a reduction in press coverage could reduce public awareness of climate change trends and NOAA research. NOAA is the top weather and climate agency in the U.S. and among the foremost worldwide. Zoom in: The monthly U.S. and global climate calls typically feature climate scientists from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, N.C. They have been held each month for years, including during the first Trump administration and George W. Bush administration, both of which sought to edit climate science reports. On these calls, reporters are typically briefed on the previous month's U.S. and global average temperatures, and trends during the year-to-date. According to two sources outside the agency who were privy to deliberations from current employees, NCEI had trouble recruiting scientists to volunteer to be on the calls for fear of angering the administration by discussing human-caused global warming. One of the global climate reports came out Wednesday, and the reports themselves are still planned. What they're saying: NOAA blamed the call suspension on a lack of staffing in the wake of cuts and in preparation for further layoffs. "Due to the loss of a significant number of staff resulting from the recent release of probationary employees, the Deferred Resignation Program and employees retiring, NCEI will no longer be able to support the monthly NOAA Communications media briefing on the U.S. and global temperature and precipitation analyses and associated products," an agency spokesperson stated via email. The briefings will be discontinued starting in April. an agency spokesperson said. The March climate call is typically replaced by a spring outlook call, which is also the case this year, making last month's climate call the last one for the foreseeable future. Yes, but: " NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information will continue to publish articles each month with data and analyses of U.S. and global temperatures and precipitation, according to its previously published schedule," the agency said in a statement. Zoom out: This move comes soon after NOAA cut about 800 staff members in the run-up to what is expected to be a deeper round of layoffs of just over 1,000 people, possibly as soon as this week.
