Could the Texas flooding be caused by climate change?

Recent catastrophic flooding in Texas, particularly in the Hill Country, is increasingly being linked to human-caused climate change by climate scientists and recent studies. Here’s how these events are considered a sign of climate change:

• Warmer Atmosphere Holds More Moisture: A fundamental principle of climate change is that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. For every 1∘C (or 1.8∘F) of warming, the atmosphere can hold about 7% more water. This “giant sponge” effect means that when storms do occur, they have a greater capacity to produce extremely heavy rainfall. Studies show that similar meteorological conditions in Texas are now up to 7% wetter than they were in the past.
• Intensification of Extreme Precipitation: Data shows that the intensity of extreme rainfall events has increased in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S., including Texas. In Texas specifically, the overall intensity of extreme rainfall has increased by 15% over the past 40-50 years. This aligns with global climate models that predict an intensification of heavy precipitation as the climate warms.
• Warmer Ocean Temperatures: The Gulf of Mexico, a major source of moisture for Texas storms, has been experiencing warmer-than-normal sea surface temperatures. Warmer oceans provide more energy for tropical storms and hurricanes, and also increase evaporation, adding more water vapor to the atmosphere that can then fuel intense downpours over land.
• “Loading the Dice” for More Extreme Events: While a single weather event cannot be solely attributed to climate change, scientists explain that climate change “loads the dice” toward more frequent and intense floods. It turns what might have been ordinary weather events into more severe disasters. Natural variability alone cannot explain the changes in rainfall associated with recent exceptional weather events.
• Paradox of Drought and Flood: Texas is experiencing a paradoxical situation where long-term drought persists in many areas even as it is hit by catastrophic floods. This extreme variability between severe droughts and floods is consistent with climate change projections, as warmer air can intensify both wet and dry weather. Dry, compacted soil from drought can also worsen flooding by reducing the ground’s ability to absorb water, leading to more runoff.
• Observed Trends Align with Projections: Climate projections for Texas indicate an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme precipitation events. The recent flooding aligns with these projections, suggesting that what used to be considered extreme is becoming more common, and what was once rare is now happening.

In summary, the increased frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall, fueled by warmer atmospheric and ocean temperatures, are strong indicators that recent flooding in Texas is influenced by human-induced climate change.

The Trump administration has significantly impacted environmental policy through a focus on deregulation, promoting fossil fuel industries, and withdrawing from international climate agreements.¹ Here’s a breakdown of key areas of impact:

1. Deregulation and Rollbacks of Environmental Protections:²

• Clean Water Act: The administration repealed the Clean Water Rule, which defined which wetlands and waterways were protected under federal law, potentially reducing protections for over half the nation’s wetlands.
• Emissions Standards: They weakened Obama-era emissions rules for power plants and vehicles, including fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards. This also included revoking California’s ability to set stricter tailpipe emissions standards.
• Mercury and Air Toxics Standards: The legal justification for limiting mercury emissions from coal power plants was withdrawn.
• Methane Regulations: Regulations aimed at reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations were reviewed and potentially rescinded.
• Endangered Species Act: Changes were made to how the Endangered Species Act is applied, making it more difficult to protect wildlife from long-term threats like climate change.
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): Reforms were implemented to expedite infrastructure development by setting deadlines and page limits on environmental reviews and clarifying that NEPA does not apply to every federal agency action. This aimed to reduce the “burdens” of environmental reviews.
• Appliance Efficiency Standards: The Department of Energy proposed revoking existing energy efficiency standards for numerous appliances, including toilets, showerheads, and lightbulbs.⁷

2. Promotion of Fossil Fuels and Energy Production:

• “America First Energy Plan”: This plan emphasized fossil fuels and aimed to boost domestic energy production by lifting regulations on various energy industries.
• Drilling and Extraction: The administration lifted a ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, opened up federal waters for mineral leasing (including for oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic Ocean), and loosened offshore drilling safety regulations.
• Coal: The freeze on new coal leases on public lands was lifted, and actions were taken to support the continued operation of coal plants.
• Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Exports: Policies were advanced to expand LNG exports, despite concerns about increased pollution and higher prices.

3. Climate Change Action and Research:

• Paris Agreement: The United States formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, signaling a retreat from international climate leadership.
• Climate Change Research and Funding: Programs related to climate change research, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Office of Environmental Justice, faced proposed budget cuts or elimination. Mentions of “climate change” were reportedly removed from some federal websites.
• “Social Cost of Carbon”: The interagency working group responsible for calculating the social cost of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide was disbanded, and federal estimates for these costs were rescinded. This impacted how federal agencies were to monetize the costs of greenhouse gas regulations.

4. Budget Cuts and Restructuring of Environmental Agencies:

• EPA Budget: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faced proposed budget cuts, which critics argued would make it harder for the agency to uphold environmental standards.
• Office of Environmental Justice: The administration sought to eliminate any office or position involving environmental justice within federal agencies.

Overall Impact:

The cumulative effect of these policies and actions has been a significant shift towards deregulation and an emphasis on domestic energy production, primarily from fossil fuels. Environmental organizations and many scientists have expressed concerns that these changes have led to increased pollution, accelerated the climate crisis, and undermined efforts to protect natural resources and public health. Supporters of these policies argued that they reduced “burdensome regulations,” boosted economic growth, and achieved “energy independence.”