EU and US act on global warming

[Iangould]

The EU is committing to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases by at least 20% between now and 2020:

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070110005788&newsLang=en

The European Commission today proposed a comprehensive new Energy Policy for Europe to combat climate change and boost the European Union's energy security and competitiveness. Setting a series of ambitious targets on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy, the package of proposals aims to create a true internal market for energy and strengthen effective regulation. The Commission believes that when an international agreement is reached on the post-2012 framework this should lead to a 30% cut in emissions from developed countries by 2020. To further underline its commitment the Commission proposes that the European Union commits now to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020, in particular through energy measures.

...and the US may not be far behind them:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six U.S. senators, including potential 2008 presidential contenders from both major parties, unveiled legislation on Friday that would force power plants and industry to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gases, seeking to cut emissions to one-third of 2000 levels by 2050.

Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and possible 2008 presidential contender, introduced a new version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, which he has pursued since 2003 with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent.

Their "cap-and-trade" plan would place a ceiling on emissions of six kinds of greenhouse gases. It would allow emitters from four sectors -- electric utilities, transportation, general industry and commercial -- to either reduce emissions outright or buy tradable permits to comply with the rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201611.html

[Iangould]

As to why Europe's doing this:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAS20070111&articleId=4420


Europe, the richest and most fertile continent and the model for the modern world, will be devastated by climate change, the European Union predicts today.

The ecosystems that have underpinned all European societies from Ancient Greece and Rome to present-day Britain and France, and which helped European civilisation gain global pre-eminence, will be disabled by remorselessly rising temperatures, EU scientists forecast in a remarkable report which is as ominous as it is detailed.

Much of the continent's age-old fertility, which gave the world the vine and the olive and now produces mountains of grain and dairy products, will not survive the climate change forecast for the coming century, the scientists say, and its wildlife will be devastated.

Europe's modern lifestyles, from summer package tours to winter skiing trips, will go the same way, they say, as the Mediterranean becomes too hot for holidays and snow and ice disappear from mountain ranges such as the Alps - with enormous economic consequences. The social consequences will also be felt as heat-related deaths rise and extreme weather events, such as storms and floods, become more violent.
...
"Europe can expect a decline in arable land, a decline in Mediterranean forest areas, a decline in the terrestrial carbon sink and soil fertility, and an increase in the number of basins with water scarcity. It will increase the loss of biodiversity."

The report predicts there will be some European "winners" from climate change, at least initially. In the north of the continent, agricultural yields will increase with a lengthened growing season and a longer frost-free period. Tourism may become more popular on the beaches of the North Sea and the Baltic as the Mediterranean becomes too hot, and deaths and diseases related to winter cold will fall.

But the negative effects will far outweigh the advantages. Take tourism. The report says "the zone with excellent weather conditions, currently located around the Mediterranean (in particular for beach tourism) will shift towards the north". And it spells out the consequences.

"The annual migration of northern Europeans to the countries of the Mediterranean in search of the traditional summer 'sun, sand and sea' holiday is the single largest flow of tourists across the globe, accounting for one-sixth of all tourist trips in 2000. This large group of tourists, totalling about 100 million per annum, spends an estimated €100bn (£67bn) per year. Any climate-induced change in these flows of tourists and money would have very large implications for the destinations involved."

While they are losing their tourists, the countries of the Mediterranean may also be losing their agriculture. Crop yields may drop sharply as drought conditions, exacerbated by more frequent forest fires, make farming ever more difficult. And that is not the only threat to Europe's food supplies. Some stocks of coldwater fish in areas such as the North Sea will move northwards as the water warms.

There are many more direct threats, the report says. The cost of taking action to cope with sea-level rise will run into billions of euros. Furthermore, "for the coming decades, it is predicted the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events will increase, and floods will likely be more frequent and severe in many areas across Europe."

The number of people affected by severe flooding in the Upper Danube area is projected to increase by 242,000 in a more extreme 3C temperature rise scenario, and by 135,000 in the case of a 2.2C rise. The total cost of damage would rise from €47.5bn to €66bn in the event of a 3C increase.

Although fewer people would die of cold in the north, that would be more than offset by increased mortality in the south. Under the more extreme scenario of a 3C increase in 2071-2100 relative to 1961-1990, there would be 86,000 additional deaths.

[Drew Van T.]

Depressing reading. Looks like Spain, Italy and Greece will get the worst of it, poor bastards.

The worst part is that these are countries which until relatively recently (not so much Italy, but in the case of Spain and Greece until the 80's) have lagged behind the rest of Western Europe in terms of development. They have just gone through a period of cultural/economical/social catching-up, sponsored directly by the EU and sponsored indirectly by those millions of tourists who descend from the North every year.

If the effects of global warming are as expected, then that process will reverse itself, and they head back into underdevelopment, which is going to be bad for everyone.

[king mob]

The grandchildren of today's skiers are likely to know the white peaks of Switzerland only from the wrappers of chocolate bars. A remarkable report on climate change that will be handed to European governments this week will say that the effect of rising temperatures will mean an end to snow across large areas of the Alps.
The report, by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, will predict the disappearance of 75 per cent of Alpine glaciers within 45 years, a surge in avalanches and floods and the closure of all but the highest ski resorts.



The 130-page document, which is the first to assess the economic impact of global warming on European leisure, comes as resorts are struggling to get their skiing seasons off the ground. Today's Snowshoe Festival in 45 French resorts has been downgraded to 'a ramble' and, according to trade unions, 40,000 French seasonal workers have still not begun work.
Shardul Agrawala, author of 'Climate Change in the European Alps', said the report shows the impact of global warming is already very real. 'There tends to be a view that climate change is decades away and that it will affect faraway places. But if you look at the Alps, whose recent warming has advanced at three times the average world rate, you can tell it is happening already.'

A foretaste of how skiing is likely to be affected is revealed by current snow levels across the Alps. Very little fell before Christmas, leaving skiers facing barren slopes. 'There was a major fall at New Year but since then the weather has been mild,' said Betony Garner of the Ski Club of Great Britain. 'Very few resorts below 1,500 metres have much snow. Many people who booked in advance will have been disappointed and in the next few years I think we are going to see people holding off until they see the snow reports. Many resorts, particularly low-lying ones in Austria and Italy, are already thinking of moving into new markets, such as spas. However, skiers will keep trying to find snow no matter how difficult it is to get to.'

Victor Saunders, a British mountaineering and ski guide who lives in Les Houches, a resort near Mont Blanc, said there were fears that the Kandahar race, one of the fixtures on the world cup circuit, may never be held again.

'I went up to Cogne, a resort on the Italian side of Mont Blanc. It was 16C, spring weather in January. Each year it is getting warmer.'

The OECD report, using scientific assessments of the progress of climate change, aims to guide governments in policy-making to avert a human, environmental and economic disaster for an industry that caters for 70 million tourists and is worth €50bn a year.

'Governments have been playing catch-up. There is a need to co-operate across borders and adapt,' said Agrawala. He claimed that within 20 years ski resorts below 1,050 metres - such as Schladming and Kitzbuhel in Austria and Garmisch-Partenkirchen in Germany - will no longer be viable. In 100 years' time he expects only the highest resorts, such as Val Thorens (2,300m) or Tignes (2,100m), to be able to offer reasonable guarantees of snow.

'Winter sports will become much more of an elite pursuit. Downhill skiing will also become more dangerous because it is going to snow more than it does today at high altitude [because of increased precipitation], thus increasing the avalanche risk.'

The OECD report forecasts the death of the German skiing industry in favour of the Swiss Alps and the French purpose-built resorts, such as La Plagne, Les Arcs, Tignes and Alpe d'Huez. 'The losers will be the small resorts, which are often at low altitude. The winners will be vast ski conglomerates on the American model,' said Agrawala.

The economic damage caused by climate change will be accompanied by environmental changes. More rain and melting glaciers will bring erosion and floods on an unprecedented scale. Agrawala warned: 'The increasing trend to mechanically grade pistes - to remove bumps and allow skiing on thinner snow cover - enhances erosion.'

He also predicted that species would die out. 'There are more than 30,000 animal species in the Alps and 13,000 plant species. As climate changes, they move upwards. But there comes a point when they cannot move any higher.'

Agrawala denied that the OECD findings were alarmist or exaggerated. 'They are real. Many of the aspects of climate change are locked [in] - they will happen. Climate change is like a super-tanker; it takes time to stop. Measures taken today by governments will only be of benefit years from now. But we already know what is going to happen in the near future.'



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1989999,00.html

[hoffmandu]

I don't know people, 2050 seems like it'll be too late............

[Charles RB]

Depressing reading. Looks like Spain, Italy and Greece will get the worst of it, poor bastards.

Mmmm. Saw that report on the front cover of the paper last week, with a map of Europe and little indications of which problems each country would face, and thought to myself "I'm bloody glad Britain seems to be getting off lightly".

Well, I say lightly but it mentions flooding, so that's half the country gone.

If the effects of global warming are as expected, then that process will reverse itself, and they head back into underdevelopment, which is going to be bad for everyone.

Mmm. That's why I'm wondering what the EU is planning to do to counter the theorised effects - cutting carbon to delay them is all well and good, but I bet the people living there would like to know there's actually a plan for what happens when the tourism stops, the crops start failing and random towns get washed away.

[Drew Van T.]

Mmmm. Saw that report on the front cover of the paper last week, with a map of Europe and little indications of which problems each country would face, and thought to myself "I'm bloody glad Britain seems to be getting off lightly".

Well, I say lightly but it mentions flooding, so that's half the country gone.

Obviously many harbors will have to be moved in-land, but this is something everyone will be doing. Britain being an island, it will definitely shrink quite a bit.

That's why I'm wondering what the EU is planning to do to counter the theorised effects - cutting carbon to delay them is all well and good, but I bet the people living there would like to know there's actually a plan for what happens when the tourism stops, the crops start failing and random towns get washed away.

At that point they'll have no choice but to drastically restructure their economies - further away from agriculture and tourism than they are now - and the EU will have to re-subsidize these alternatives with taxpayer money from the North, just like it did when they first joined in the 70's and 80's. It's the only available solution.

[Bloopinator]

God I love this planet and what us humans do to it. :D

[Bear]

Their "cap-and-trade" plan would place a ceiling on emissions of six kinds of greenhouse gases. It would allow emitters from four sectors -- electric utilities, transportation, general industry and commercial -- to either reduce emissions outright or buy tradable permits to comply with the rules.[/INDENT]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011201611.html


I really disagree with this notion of "buying" credits.

1) First of all, because it is just unfair: the American consumer has always been forced to pick-up-the-tab for what are truly the worst polluters of all: namely, American Industry, and Commercial presences within the United States. That is why homeowners are required to recycle refuse, and office buildings are not; why cars owners are required to have catalytic coverters (which decrease the fuel efficiency of their vehicles), and industry has never had to filter its smokestacks; and why of course we are asked to lower the thermostat in the winter, and raise in the summer.

I do my very best as a citizen to keep myself in check, environmentally speaking; but I don't see any significiant effort, on the part of Industry and local Government in general.

I work in a school, and even while we have the bins to separate trash, we are not required by law to do this, because of the legal technicalities and exemption, which include: bulidings occupied by more than one family's amount of people.

Office building do not have to recycle; schools do not have to recycle. But homeowners do?

I believe in recycling--mostly because I resent wastefulness--but I'd imagine that any apartment complex, or office building, or school, produces more trash per day than a single home.

I think the standards at least should be more stringent on Industry. Anyone here ever drive the Jersey Turnpike? Hold your nose.

Homeowners certainly shouldn't be allowed to "buy" themselves out of their responsibilies to the environment, and Industry shouldn't either.

2) Secondly: I see this (in the long term) as just an easier bargaining posture of Automobile manufactures (et al) to get out of effecting real change in emissions output. Whatever corruption in industry and politics we experience now, I anticipate much worse so long as we forfeit authentic legal reins to shut down factories, by giving them a backdoor.

Favors will be done; allowances will be made. And virtually nothing should be expected, in the way of bettering the environment, if pressure is not placed constantly on the perpetrators of environment hazards.

Somehow, I am reminded of the certain "favors" done on the part of and for John D. Rockefeller, by the Railroad companies. Basically: you promise not to ship for anybody else, and I'll give you all of my business (which is very vast indeed).

Well, who is to say industry couldn't just buy "pollution credits" on the cheap from friends for certain favors that are still economically viable to them.

They are businesses (industry), just the same, run by persons with business degrees--who are trained to efficiently go'round the system.

Therefore: will the price of an individual credits even be regulated? Who is to say an executive at GM couldn't sell to friends at Exxon for $1 each.

This sounds like all the makings of a legal bribe.

[king mob]

Obviously many harbors will have to be moved in-land, but this is something everyone will be doing. Britain being an island, it will definitely shrink quite a bit.



It already is. Places like Norfolk are seeing a massive change in its coastline.

[Nick Soapdish]

I really disagree with this notion of "buying" credits.

1) First of all, because it is just unfair: the American consumer has always been forced to pick-up-the-tab for what are truly the worst polluters of all: namely, American Industry, and Commercial presences within the United States. That is why homeowners are required to recycle refuse, and office buildings are not; why cars owners are required to have catalytic coverters (which decrease the fuel efficiency of their vehicles), and industry has never had to filter its smokestacks; and why of course we are asked to lower the thermostat in the winter, and raise in the summer.



Not sure where you're at, but that's local.

Not all homeowners are required to recycle. I have to pay extra to have my recycled picked up (although it's cheaper than what I'm paying to have my regular trash picked up).

And industry has had to install scrubbers on their smokestacks. Maybe not enough, but there is at least some effort being made there.

I'm personally in favor of buying and trading credits. But with a lot of caveats.

It's a good idea because you may have two industries that produce tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. One can clean up sulfur dioxide very well, but is tremendously expensive to clean up nitrogen dioxide. The other is reversed. Buying credits allows the two to trade credits and get rid of the pollutant that they're better at instead of spending tons of money for little effort.

It's a bad idea because it's easy to game the system. You could have companies trading credits a long ways away from each other so that both areas are still seeing tons of the one pollution. If you allow only a set number of pollution permits (and that's a big part of the problem - that companies are following the guidelines, but just keep on building more factories and pollution levels continue to rise), it's a way for the big companies to shut out the smaller ones.

So it's gotta be done "right".

[Iangould]

Even Dubya wants in on the act:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1832453.htm

Mr Bush will use the lion's share of an expected 50-minute address to talk about a domestic agenda for the year.

He will float proposals on reducing US gasoline usage, expanding health care for more Americans, getting a new immigration policy approved and improving education.

Aides said he would ask Congress to set a goal of reducing American gasoline usage by 20 per cent over 10 years through improved vehicle fuel standards and increased production of alternative fuels.


Funny monkey, he thinks he's people.

Just think how much less American dependance on foreign oil would be today if he'd down this six years ago.

[hoffmandu]

Even Dubya wants in on the act:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1832453.htm

Mr Bush will use the lion's share of an expected 50-minute address to talk about a domestic agenda for the year.

He will float proposals on reducing US gasoline usage, expanding health care for more Americans, getting a new immigration policy approved and improving education.

Aides said he would ask Congress to set a goal of reducing American gasoline usage by 20 per cent over 10 years through improved vehicle fuel standards and increased production of alternative fuels.




Funny monkey, he thinks he's people.

Just think how much less American dependance on foreign oil would be today if he'd down this six years ago.


This is BS, GWB had a hand in shutting out the electric car........this pisses me off to no end.

[Shellhead]

Bush is reportedly asking for stricter gas mileage standards, but only for cars. SUVs will continue to get a free pass, which infuriates me, since they are creating a great deal more pollution. Recent polls indicate that 30% of americans still don't believe in global warming, despite the fact that roughly 100% of scientists do.

A lot of short-sighted people don't seem to understand why global warming is a threat, when it's really obvious. Food is essential, and weather patterns can have a major impact on crop yields. If the climate changes too rapidly, there will be widespread food shortages. Since humans don't usually respond to starvation with passivity, that means there will be war. Given that the U.S. can't even handle a single middle eastern country these days, even americans may face suffering as global warming kicks in.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of that 30% is right-wing types who still think that global warming concerns are simply a leftist political scheme. I don't know how taking a cavalier attitude about our global food supply can be considered a "conservative" stance, but there you have it.

[hoffmandu]

Bush is reportedly asking for stricter gas mileage standards, but only for cars. SUVs will continue to get a free pass, which infuriates me, since they are creating a great deal more pollution. Recent polls indicate that 30% of americans still don't believe in global warming, despite the fact that roughly 100% of scientists do.

A lot of short-sighted people don't seem to understand why global warming is a threat, when it's really obvious. Food is essential, and weather patterns can have a major impact on crop yields. If the climate changes too rapidly, there will be widespread food shortages. Since humans don't usually respond to starvation with passivity, that means there will be war. Given that the U.S. can't even handle a single middle eastern country these days, even americans may face suffering as global warming kicks in.

I'm willing to bet that a lot of that 30% is right-wing types who still think that global warming concerns are simply a leftist political scheme. I don't know how taking a cavalier attitude about our global food supply can be considered a "conservative" stance, but there you have it.

Americans may face suffering? Anyone take a good look at the weather lately? It's snowing everywhere it isn't supposed to and places like MN barely got a drip.
I completely agree with your statements. People need to start educating themselves on this subject cuz the Gov sure as shit isn't. Global Warming spells Global Doom, and I'm not talking by 2050, I'm talking in the next 10.

[Ontir]

All the time I was in Rochester, NY from Dec 2, until Jan 5, there were maybe two days with a light cover of snow. Then I get back to "sunny" LA, and the 80 degree weather gives way to 40, or lower. Rochester got an ice storm, and it snowed in Malibu.

I'm not sure how lightly Britain's getting off. Some of the predictions talk about London having to be abandoned. I guess it all depends upon how much of the ice is lost.

[hoffmandu]

All the time I was in Rochester, NY from Dec 2, until Jan 5, there were maybe two days with a light cover of snow. Then I get back to "sunny" LA, and the 80 degree weather gives way to 40, or lower. Rochester got an ice storm, and it snowed in Malibu.

I'm not sure how lightly Britain's getting off. Some of the predictions talk about London having to be abandoned. I guess it all depends upon how much of the ice is lost.


Yet Warming is just a political myth.....riiiiiiiiight. Ice Storms in New Mexico, Snow in San Diego and AZ............I'm up in MPLS and we didn't get serious (minimal) snow until Jan, which is usally expected in late Oct. I don't know about you guys, but this is really starting to make me nervous.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Even Dubya wants in on the act:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1832453.htm

Mr Bush will use the lion's share of an expected 50-minute address to talk about a domestic agenda for the year.

He will float proposals on reducing US gasoline usage, expanding health care for more Americans, getting a new immigration policy approved and improving education.

Aides said he would ask Congress to set a goal of reducing American gasoline usage by 20 per cent over 10 years through improved vehicle fuel standards and increased production of alternative fuels.


Funny monkey, he thinks he's people.

Just think how much less American dependance on foreign oil would be today if he'd down this six years ago.


Man, he really is concerned with his legacy.
Does he really think people will forget all the shit he did when he had power now that he doesn't have it?
Or is even he realising Al Gore would have made a better President?

[king mob]

I'm not sure how lightly Britain's getting off.

Up until yesterday you could easily be outside in a t-shirt and it felt like spring. We've only had our first snowfalls of the winter over the last 24 hours.

[Iangould]

Man, he really is concerned with his legacy.
Does he really think people will forget all the shit he did when he had power now that he doesn't have it?
Or is even he realising Al Gore would have made a better President?

I'm just amazed that he thinks he's still relevant.

Sure the majority in Congress will go for his proposals over the bipartisan plan co-sponsored by John McCain.

[Iangould]

Up until yesterday you could easily be outside in a t-shirt and it felt like spring. We've only had our first snowfalls of the winter over the last 24 hours.

Weird - we had our first real Queensland summer night last night.

It was likr trying to sleep in a sauna.

[hoffmandu]

Weird - we had our first real Queensland summer night last night.

It was likr trying to sleep in a sauna.

Is this normal or what?

[Paradox]

Ontir goes for the overkill:

All the time I was in Rochester, NY from Dec 2, until Jan 5, there were maybe two days with a light cover of snow. Then I get back to "sunny" LA, and the 80 degree weather gives way to 40, or lower. Rochester got an ice storm, and it snowed in Malibu.

I'm not sure how lightly Britain's getting off. Some of the predictions talk about London having to be abandoned. I guess it all depends upon how much of the ice is lost.

Every scientist I've seen report on any of this is saying it's mostly a common El Nino phenomenon, PERHAPS aggravated by global warming. Doesn't sound too definitely related to me. Certainly possible, but let's not be drowning London quite yet.

[hoffmandu]

Every scientist I've seen report on any of this is saying it's mostly a common El Nino phenomenon, PERHAPS aggravated by global warming. Doesn't sound too definitely related to me. Certainly possible, but let's not be drowning London quite yet.

I think your missing the point that these strong hurricanes as of recent can be directly related to global warming.

[Charles RB]

Up until yesterday you could easily be outside in a t-shirt and it felt like spring.

By "it felt like spring" do you mean "it was cold and windy and if you went around in a T-shirt you'd freeze"?

[Paradox]

Can hoffmandu clear that up?:

I think your missing the point that these strong hurricanes as of recent can be directly related to global warming.

Is that right? I thought that was related to El Nino as well. Doesn't El Nino calm down hurricanes and the like, followed by freaky weather, followed by resurgence of hurricanes? I've never seen anything but speculation about global warming and hurricanes.

[king mob]

By "it felt like spring" do you mean "it was cold and windy and if you went around in a T-shirt you'd freeze"?


We had a few windy days last week but it's been unseasonably warm round these here parts until yesterday when it decided to be fucking freezing. Of course last night was the night i saw my first live footy match for ages. I think my arse frooze off sitting on freezing plastic chairs.

[Charles RB]

it's been unseasonably warm round these here parts

Your parts are clearly on the other side of the island to me!

[hoffmandu]

Is that right? I thought that was related to El Nino as well. Doesn't El Nino calm down hurricanes and the like, followed by freaky weather, followed by resurgence of hurricanes? I've never seen anything but speculation about global warming and hurricanes.

Indeed, it doesn't get enough coverage in the news (which is weird). You need to watch Inconveinient Truth (honestly, it's the best reference). Otherwise, yeah, the sudden (by earth standards) change in water temp coupled with current wind temps/patterns causes major havoc when mixed. Kind of like Mentos and diet coke.

[king mob]

Your parts are clearly on the other side of the island to me!

Well we have been trying to chip Bristol off from the mainland and tow it to just off the Spanish coast but we just can't get a lottery grant to do it.

[Drew Van T.]

We had a few windy days last week but it's been unseasonably warm round these here parts until yesterday when it decided to be fucking freezing.

Yes, same here. Funny how closely it matches.

Now it's a normal winter at last, but until two days ago it was a damned heat wave.

[Charles RB]

Well we have been trying to chip Bristol off from the mainland and tow it to just off the Spanish coast but we just can't get a lottery grant to do it.


Trying to steal the Comic Expo from the rest of us? You bastard! :mad:

[Iangould]

Is this normal or what?

For Queensland in summer?

Yes.

Back in the 19th century, the rich used to retreat to Toowoomba (which is less humid and at much higher altitude) every summer.

[Iangould]

Is that right? I thought that was related to El Nino as well. Doesn't El Nino calm down hurricanes and the like, followed by freaky weather, followed by resurgence of hurricanes? I've never seen anything but speculation about global warming and hurricanes.

I can find the reference if I really need to but the latest word in the peer-reviewed journals is that over the past fifty or so years neither the number nor the maximum strength of hurricanes has increased.

That's the good news - the bad new is that the average strength has increased. (There are physical phenomena that limit the maximum power a hurricane can have). That's very, very bad news because more powerful hurricanes tend to last a lot longer which increases the chances of their track crossing occupied land. So there's a nonlinear relationship between average hurricane strength and damage and casualties - a 5-10% increase in average strength results in a much greater than 5-10% increase in damage.