1
00:00:01,535 --> 00:00:03,604
again.
>> Reporting from Fremont.

2
00:00:03,670 --> 00:00:06,907
I'm Steven Potter for here
and Now.

3
00:00:07,875 --> 00:00:10,811
>> Climate disasters like
flooding and storms are on

4
00:00:10,878 --> 00:00:14,781
the rise across the state,
resulting in added human

5
00:00:14,848 --> 00:00:18,685
and financial costs. A new
report projects we'll see

6
00:00:18,752 --> 00:00:22,623
more intense storms into
the future and more rapid

7
00:00:22,689 --> 00:00:26,560
shifts between very wet and
very hot conditions. But

8
00:00:26,627 --> 00:00:29,997
there are ways to encourage
climate resiliency,

9
00:00:30,063 --> 00:00:34,134
according to Steve Vavrus,
co-director of the

10
00:00:34,201 --> 00:00:36,570
Wisconsin Initiative on
Climate Change Impacts.

11
00:00:36,637 --> 00:00:40,174
Just out with its 2026
assessment. And thanks very

12
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:42,809
much for being here.
>> Thank you for having me.

13
00:00:42,876 --> 00:00:47,147
>> So are the current
floods and last week's 24

14
00:00:47,214 --> 00:00:51,084
tornadoes across the state,
evidence of a changing

15
00:00:51,151 --> 00:00:53,053
climate?
>> I think last week's

16
00:00:53,120 --> 00:00:55,689
severe weather outbreak is
a combination of random

17
00:00:55,756 --> 00:00:59,560
weather variability, i.e.
bad luck in this case, and

18
00:00:59,626 --> 00:01:02,129
also climate change. And
the climate change

19
00:01:02,196 --> 00:01:04,698
fingerprints are on it
because climate change

20
00:01:04,765 --> 00:01:08,402
favors the warm, humid air
masses that we saw out of

21
00:01:08,468 --> 00:01:10,871
season, we typically don't
hit 80 degrees and have

22
00:01:10,938 --> 00:01:13,607
humid weather in the middle
of April. But if we do, we

23
00:01:13,674 --> 00:01:16,577
have the fuel that
generates severe storms.

24
00:01:16,643 --> 00:01:19,546
>> So according to your
assessment, what are other

25
00:01:19,613 --> 00:01:22,983
trends for climate impacts
going forward? And some

26
00:01:23,050 --> 00:01:26,687
examples of that.
>> One of the the key terms

27
00:01:26,753 --> 00:01:29,957
or key phrases I like to
use is warmer and wetter.

28
00:01:30,023 --> 00:01:32,759
That describes the climate
change we've seen to date,

29
00:01:32,826 --> 00:01:35,262
and also the climate change
we're expecting in the

30
00:01:35,329 --> 00:01:38,465
future. In Wisconsin, for
example, the 2020s are

31
00:01:38,532 --> 00:01:40,868
currently the warmest
decade in state history.

32
00:01:40,934 --> 00:01:43,904
The 20 tens were the
wettest decade in

33
00:01:43,971 --> 00:01:46,473
Wisconsin's history, and
we've seen an increasing

34
00:01:46,540 --> 00:01:50,077
number of heavy rainfalls
punctuated, unfortunately,

35
00:01:50,143 --> 00:01:53,380
with the state record last
year. Last summer in

36
00:01:53,447 --> 00:01:58,285
Milwaukee, dumping 14.5in.
>> And your report said

37
00:01:58,352 --> 00:02:01,054
something that stood out.
It was March used to be

38
00:02:01,121 --> 00:02:04,691
part of winter, but now
it's part of spring.

39
00:02:04,758 --> 00:02:06,994
>> Yeah. And that's an
interesting new finding

40
00:02:07,060 --> 00:02:10,197
that came out of the State
Climatology office. And the

41
00:02:10,264 --> 00:02:13,133
reason we talk about it
that way is that in the

42
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:16,236
past, starting in the most
of the 20th century, the

43
00:02:16,303 --> 00:02:18,872
majority of time in
Wisconsin, March was below

44
00:02:18,939 --> 00:02:22,309
freezing, below 32 degrees.
And recently in the past

45
00:02:22,376 --> 00:02:24,945
decade or so, that's
flipped. And now we spend

46
00:02:25,012 --> 00:02:28,215
the majority of March above
freezing. And that has big

47
00:02:28,282 --> 00:02:30,884
consequences in terms of
whether we get rain or snow.

48
00:02:30,951 --> 00:02:33,153
If we get snow, how long it
sticks around, and when our

49
00:02:33,220 --> 00:02:35,889
lake ice melts in the
spring.

50
00:02:36,490 --> 00:02:39,660
very measurable. And yet
there is still, if not

51
00:02:39,726 --> 00:02:43,363
scientific political
skepticism around climate

52
00:02:43,430 --> 00:02:46,400
change. What is that like
for a climate scientist?

53
00:02:46,466 --> 00:02:48,702
>> More and more people
understand that the

54
00:02:48,769 --> 00:02:50,871
climate's changing. The
evidence is all around us.

55
00:02:50,938 --> 00:02:54,208
It's hard to miss the
politics. Enter into it in

56
00:02:54,274 --> 00:02:57,411
terms of how serious a
problem it is compared with

57
00:02:57,477 --> 00:03:00,647
other issues that we're
dealing with, and also what

58
00:03:00,714 --> 00:03:03,650
can we do about it, or what
should we do about it, and

59
00:03:03,717 --> 00:03:05,853
how much resources should
we put in terms of climate

60
00:03:05,919 --> 00:03:09,189
change and other other
issues that we're facing?

61
00:03:09,256 --> 00:03:12,626
So I think that the shifts
there's been a shift in

62
00:03:12,693 --> 00:03:16,029
terms of how we talk about
climate change, and the

63
00:03:16,096 --> 00:03:18,232
surveys show that
increasing numbers of

64
00:03:18,298 --> 00:03:21,201
Americans understand and
are aware of climate change.

65
00:03:21,268 --> 00:03:24,371
>> Your report looks at
ways Wisconsin can mitigate

66
00:03:24,438 --> 00:03:28,709
against the impacts like
nature based strategies.

67
00:03:28,775 --> 00:03:31,712
What's an example of that?
>> Yeah. So we talk about

68
00:03:31,778 --> 00:03:35,482
in the wiki report, the
wiki assessment, a range of

69
00:03:35,549 --> 00:03:37,985
options ranging from what
we call traditional

70
00:03:38,051 --> 00:03:40,254
mitigation strategies,
which is cutting carbon

71
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:43,524
emissions, reducing the
source of climate change to

72
00:03:43,590 --> 00:03:45,459
adaptation. And that is
accepting that there will

73
00:03:45,526 --> 00:03:47,661
be impacts. And now
figuring out what to do

74
00:03:47,728 --> 00:03:51,131
with it. We try to promote
nature based impacts. These

75
00:03:51,198 --> 00:03:53,901
are things like green
infrastructure. Instead of

76
00:03:53,967 --> 00:03:57,137
relying strictly on
traditional infrastructure.

77
00:03:57,204 --> 00:03:59,740
So for instance, with more
heavy rainfalls, the

78
00:03:59,806 --> 00:04:02,142
traditional engineering
approach is to build bigger

79
00:04:02,209 --> 00:04:05,512
stormwater pipes, increase
the size of culverts. But

80
00:04:05,579 --> 00:04:08,949
there are also nature based
green strategies such as

81
00:04:09,016 --> 00:04:12,619
rain gardens and green
roofs, and bioswales and

82
00:04:12,686 --> 00:04:15,489
wetland restoration that
can all be as effective or

83
00:04:15,556 --> 00:04:18,659
more effective, and also
more reduce the costs as

84
00:04:18,725 --> 00:04:20,727
well.
>> How well does

85
00:04:21,295 --> 00:04:24,831
Wisconsin's infrastructure
hold up to these changing

86
00:04:24,898 --> 00:04:27,634
climate impacts?
>> It's a mixed bag. One of

87
00:04:27,701 --> 00:04:30,270
the ways that we're
struggling right now is

88
00:04:30,337 --> 00:04:33,640
with these increasing
numbers of extreme rainfall,

89
00:04:33,707 --> 00:04:37,244
because much of Wisconsin's
infrastructure was built 40,

90
00:04:37,311 --> 00:04:40,714
50, even 100 years ago, in
some cases for a different

91
00:04:40,781 --> 00:04:43,250
climate. And that climate
was cooler and it was drier

92
00:04:43,317 --> 00:04:46,386
than the climate we're
experiencing now. And so

93
00:04:46,453 --> 00:04:50,524
certain ways that we used
to manage stormwater just

94
00:04:50,591 --> 00:04:53,060
aren't valid anymore. They
aren't as effective. And so

95
00:04:53,126 --> 00:04:56,163
the infrastructure can't
hold up as well.

96
00:04:56,230 --> 00:04:58,632
>> So is there a dollar
figure on how much it would

97
00:04:58,699 --> 00:05:01,101
cost to make Wisconsin
climate resilient

98
00:05:01,168 --> 00:05:03,737
infrastructure and
otherwise?

99
00:05:03,804 --> 00:05:06,306
dollar amount. But I like
to bring up the old adage

100
00:05:06,373 --> 00:05:09,209
that an ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure.

101
00:05:09,276 --> 00:05:12,145
And a lot of studies show
that a dollar invested in

102
00:05:12,212 --> 00:05:15,349
becoming more resilient
pays off many times over in

103
00:05:15,415 --> 00:05:18,519
terms of reduced damage.
And a good example of that

104
00:05:18,585 --> 00:05:21,588
was with Milwaukee becoming
much more flood resilient

105
00:05:21,655 --> 00:05:24,157
over the years. The
Milwaukee Metropolitan

106
00:05:24,224 --> 00:05:26,260
Sewerage District in
particular, has done a

107
00:05:26,326 --> 00:05:28,929
number of things that have
made the city more

108
00:05:28,996 --> 00:05:31,765
resilient to climate change
and heavy rainfalls, and

109
00:05:31,832 --> 00:05:34,201
the damage from last
summer's rains would have

110
00:05:34,268 --> 00:05:38,272
been much, much worse
been much, much worse