Some Alaska officials are describing the devastation ex-Typhoon Halong caused in Western Alaska as a "wake up call," as an ever-warming global climate makes the intense storms more likely.
But efforts to identify villages vulnerable to such storms, as well as other impacts related to climate change, go back decades. That includes various state task forces, starting with the administration of former Gov. Sarah Palin.
According to a recent story from the Northern Journal, an estimate from 2020 put the cost of protecting infrastructure in Alaska's threatened communities at $4.3 billion over the next half-century.
Northern Journal reporter Nat Herz says, despite years of work, at least one other similarly devastating storm and a 200-page report on the subject, there's still no clear path forward.
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Nat Herz: We know that these villages, many of them in the (Yukon-Kuskokwim) Delta, are going to have enormously expensive tasks, whether they move, whether they rebuild, and there really isn't a clear plan for what exactly we're going to do as a state, collectively, to make that happen. But, eventually, this research and the conversations I was having brought me back around to some of the research that had been done on the threats to these Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta communities and some of the ideas about what needs to be done.
And, in particular, I kind of stumbled across this really comprehensive and thorough and just very clear report led by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, the statewide coalition of Alaska tribal health organizations, but that had been kind of reviewed by elders across the state from threatened communities, and also had participation from state agencies, at least, I think, if not federal agencies as well.
Casey Grove: Yeah, and I think a lot of people in your story were describing the devastation from the remnants of Typhoon Halong as a wake up call, but this report obviously had been done before that, and I think there's this question of whether enough has been done. The report has some recommendations, but it centers on a cost also, and tell me about that, I mean in terms of how much money we're talking about for either protecting villages that are vulnerable to climate change and storms like this or actually relocating them.
NH: This was a report that came out last year in January that was this huge team effort and released by the Native Tribal Health Consortium that kind of specifically outlined what threats, what environmental threats, are risks to Alaska villages, like along the coast and along rivers, as far as like permafrost thaw, sea level rise, that kind of thing.
(It) very specifically came forward with some concepts to address those threats, and the core one being that there is a gap in the funding that is needed to address these environmental threats of roughly $80 million a year. And what they very specifically asked for was that that $80 million a year be created and sent by the federal government through an agency, some kind of agency that has Alaska leadership, and that it would flow to the Alaska communities in order of the most urgent need.
CG: Yeah, I mean, I guess at least one advocate in your story had called for a summit right here pretty soon in the next couple months or something. Does it feel like we are closer to something like that, that might be looking at solutions, bringing tribal, state, federal partners to the table?
NH: I think it's a really challenging issue, especially in Alaska, because in many ways, it does tie back to climate change, to permafrost thaw, sea level rise, all of these things that scientists, sort of the vast consensus of science and scientists, tell us that this is a problem that stems from human-caused climate change, which comes from our burning of fossil fuels, which tie back to the very foundation of Alaska's economy.
And so I think there are some folks that are at the margins of that economy who feel very comfortable having a conversation about like, 'OK, this is the scientific reality of what we're facing, and we know what we're going to face in the future based on what scientists predict, so let's have a very concerted, honest conversation about that."
I think there are other folks for whom that conversation and acknowledging that is kind of difficult, and they have to sort of talk around it. And I don't think that as Alaskans and as Alaska policymakers there's a consensus about how we talk about this problem of environmentally threatened communities, rather than communities that are threatened by climate change, and can we do that in a way that is going to result in the sort of broad political will to do what needs to be done to make the more proactive and forward-thinking plans to protect these communities, that you're not having storms come and destroy villages and result in dozens or hundreds of people having to move from their homes in an unplanned way, to Bethel or Anchorage. Because I think that's a situation that everyone recognizes is deeply problematic and not the outcome that we want. But I think if we really want that outcome to not continue to happen in the future, we are going to have to start thinking and talking about this in a new and more urgent way.
