BY: WILLIAM S. BECKER
“Everybody talks about the weather,”
the old quip goes, “but nobody does anything about it.” People, in other words, complain endlessly about realities beyond their control.
Today, we know that we do influence the weather and can do something about it. The decisions we each make every day, particularly how we use energy, influence whether the weather becomes more extreme.
Natural disasters, from floods and wildfires to tornadoes and deadly heat waves, dominate the evening news. Big disasters — those with damages of at least $1 billion — have increased
83 percent worldwide since the 1990s. Last year, there were 23, the third highest number since 1980. They caused
276 deaths and $115 billion in damages.
Scientists agree there is no place to hide: Every part of the country is affected.
As recently as four years ago, people were
less inclined to believe that personal action could influence climate change. This year, nearly
60 percent of us feel a personal obligation to do something about it. There is growing interest in something called “climate democracy,” in which communities engage citizens in preventing, preparing for and recovering from weather-related disasters. Everybody with an environmental footprint — in other words, everybody — has a vote.
Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate calls for a 1-year moratorium on construction of new data centers
One leader is the
Climate Democracy Initiative, a Colorado-based nonprofit where I am an unpaid senior fellow. It argues that climate change is a governance problem as well as an environmental crisis, especially in small and rural communities with limited resources. They must deal with extreme weather while contending with uncertain federal help and fragmented government programs.
“Our goal is flipping that script to put local voices first,” the initiative’s executive director, Natalie Montecino, explains. “People are contending with rapid environmental, economic, and political changes without the resources, representation, or institutional trust needed to respond. We work with communities to build the civic leadership and decision-making power to shape that response themselves, rather than wait on systems that too often leave them behind.”
In other words, environmental stewardship and climate action become exercises in local democracy. Local action is necessary because while federal help is essential, it is not always reliable. Climate change is a forever crisis, but elected leaders and their priorities keep changing.
The current administration in Washington denies that climate change is even real. Since the U.S. agreed in 1992 to work with other countries on climate action, Congress has done little to nothing.
People are the ultimate victims of extreme weather; they are also the ultimate solution, using local building codes, land-use planning, zoning, managed retreats, clean energy technologies, and nature-based hazard mitigation measures.
This doesn’t absolve the federal government from responsibility. It has encouraged climate change by subsidizing fossil energy production and pollution for more than a century.
Among other things, it should shift fossil energy subsidies to disaster mitigation. Direct federal subsidies total about
$35 billion each year, but the real cost to the American people is
$725 billion annually when the social and environmental damages of fossil fuels are counted. It’s an extraordinary example of corporate welfare for a wealthy and mature industry.
It should also deal with legacy risks. In the last century, the government’s approach to disasters was to control nature with engineering works. Now, tens of millions of Americans live in natural floodplains and within reach of storm surges, assuming that structures keep them safe. There are nearly
17,000 high-hazard dams and at least
24,000 miles of levees in the U.S. Most were built to be reliable for 50 years, but their average age is over 60. Few, if any, were built to handle the intensity of today’s weather. It would cost over
$165 billion to repair deficient dams,
$70 billion to repair levees, and
$416 billion by 2040 to armor coasts against sea-level rise. It would be safer and more cost-effective to fund nonstructural, nature-based mitigation.
The federal government should emphasize disaster avoidance. In 2024 and 2025,
more Americans moved out of disaster zones than moved into them. FEMA should prioritize “managed retreats” that allow communities to retain residents and property tax revenues. Federal buyouts of at-risk homes
return up to $6 for every $1 spent, compared with $2 from levees or flood-proofing. However, it takes FEMA at least
five years on average to finalize buyouts, which is unworkable for many homeowners.
It should also improve access to assistance.
More than 30 federal agencies offer programs that could help communities deal with disasters, but there is no single point of access. FEMA should create one, along with a single application portal for federal aid. FEMA should approve local response and recovery plans before disasters to expedite its post-disaster help.
However, local people must take control of their future and own it by minimizing fossil-energy pollution, restoring beneficial ecosystems, moving out of identified disaster zones, and planning well in advance for the next bad weather event.
William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs. He also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.
