Close X

# Blizzards will hit Heathrow again: How to prepare?

View video

Alastair Grant / AP

(Read caption) Planes taxi around the southern runway of London's Heathrow Airport, Dec. 22. Disruption continues after heavy snowstorms led to the cancellation of several flights. As climate change increases the odds of massive snowstorms and heat waves, smart planners will invest in planning for the worst.

View photo

A rare major snowstorm in Europe has crippled airports as major airports such as Heathrow were caught unprepared for a major storm. Stranded customers are angry and wondering why the airport didn’t have a contingency plan (or snow trucks) to handle serious snow.

In the Summer of 2010, a major heat wave hit Moscow. The city was caught unprepared for a major heat wave. Moscow residents were angry and wondered why the city and themselves didn’t have a contingency plan for how to handle the heat in the same way that people in Phoenix do. Do you see the similarities between these two paragraphs?

The core logic of my book Climatopolis is: “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. In the 1960s and 1970s, academic nerd economists debated whether people have myopic expectations (tomorrow will be like today), or rational expectations (our best guess of tomorrow’s weather equals the true average but we do make forecast errors). Climate change adaptation pushes this issue to forefront again.

Climate change will increase the volatility of weather events. There will be more snowy days and more hot days. How does this increased risk affect investment today? Consider the basic microeconomics logic of the Heathrow airport. In 2010, assume that the firm who operates the airport believes that there is a 1 in 10000 chance of a major snowstorm. Suppose that plowing equipment costs \$1 million dollars to buy and operate. Assume that the damage to the reputation of the airport due to customer anger from delays equals \$1 billion dollars when a snow event occurs and the airport isn’t ready to handle it. Will the rational cost minimizing airport prepare?

CASE #1: The airport doesn’t invest in the snow equipmentWith probability 99.99% there is no disaster and nothing to worry about.With probability 1/10000 the airport loses 1 billion dollars. The expected loss = 100,000

CASE #2: The airport invests in the snow equipmentSo with probability 1 , it pays \$1 million dollars but it has 0 probability of a public relations disaster.Since \$100,000 < \$1 million, the firm will chose CASE #1 and disasters will occur.

NOW INTRODUCE Climate Change --- watch this Joe Romm! If the airport anticipates that the probability of a major snowstorm rises from 1/10000 to 1/500 --- let’s recalculate the expected values from each investment choice.

CASE #1: The airport doesn’t invest in the snow equipmentWith probability 99.5% there is no disaster and nothing to worry about.With probability 1/500 the airport loses 1 billion dollars. The expected loss = \$2 million

CASE #2: The airport invests in the snow equipmentSo with probability 1 , it pays \$1 million dollars but it has 0 probability of a public relations disaster.Since \$1 million < \$2 million, the firm will chose CASE #2 and climate shocks will cause less damage to our economy.