President Obama’s Resilience Plan Needs Federal Investments
Posted by Michelle Moquin on August 5th, 2013
Good morning!
President Obama’s Resilience Plan Needs Federal Investments
The president’s resilience plan is beneficial but insufficient to protect Americans’ lives, homes, and businesses, as well as reduce federal disaster-relief spending. The plan does not specifically seek a federal revenue stream to fund resilience projects, though it encourages federal agencies to find resources in their existing—but shrinking, thanks to sequestration—budgets to fund these important tasks.
Additional federal resources for resilience are essential to accomplish these vital goals and ensure that all of our communities are prepared to deal with a more volatile climate in the future. We urge the federal government to estimate the cost of future resilience needs and identify and adopt additional revenue sources to pay for them as quickly as possible.
The United States has experienced severe bouts of extreme weather during the past several years. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, reported that there were a record 81 “major disaster declarations” in 2010. This record was broken in 2011, with 99 disaster declarations.* A CAP analysis found that there were 25 severe extreme weather events in 2011 and 2012 that each caused at least $1 billion in damages. These events caused a total of 1,107 fatalities and $188 billion in damages.
The draft National Climate Assessment noted that future extreme weather events will threaten the safety and stability of our homes, businesses, and infrastructure in the coming years. It found that the changing climate “[w]ill be disruptive to society because our institutions and infrastructure have been designed for the relatively stable climate of the past, not the changing one of the present and future.”
As extreme weather increases, it is essential to invest in measures that make communities better able to prepare to withstand the high winds, floodwaters, scorching heat, searing wildfires, and parched earth from extreme weather. Every $1 invested in resilience, or “pre-disaster mitigation,” reduces the cost of damages from these extreme weather events by $4, according to a study for FEMA.
Despite the savings from investments in resilience, federal disaster-recovery spending far outweighs investments in resilience. In the most complete accounting of federal disaster and resilience spending, recent CAP analyses found that while the federal government spent $136 billion on disaster relief from 2011 to 2013, it only spent $22 billion to help communities protect themselves from future extreme weather events. The federal government therefore spent $6 for post-disaster cleanup for every $1 it spent on future protection and preparedness.
The National Academy of Sciences, or NAS, report, “Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative,” explains that resilience efforts require significant financial investments. NAS notes that “significant investment is required to mitigate the losses of human life, risks to human health, and economic and social costs.” Furthermore, NAS has determined that the federal government does not have a reliable estimate of the total investment that would be required to build more-resilient communities.
NAS recognizes that protection for people and property—though very cost effective—is not cheap:
- New York City’s plan to increase its resilience to future extreme weather events will cost the city $19.5 billion. It will, for example, spend $1.2 billion to elevate critical building equipment to prevent damage from future floods or storm surges.
- The National Research Council reported that, “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified 160 additional villages in rural Alaska that are threatened by climate-related erosion, with relocation costs are estimated at $30-$50 million per village.” No funds have been provided yet for this effort.
- In flood-prone coastal areas of Gloucester County, Virginia, FEMA provided nearly $12 million to raise 60 homes out of flood danger, with another 59 buildings waiting in line for assistance.
Federal agencies’ ability to reprogram existing funds to invest in community resilience, however, may be constrained by current law that may not allow additional spending flexibility. It is therefore unclear how much additional revenue this effort will add to community-resilience investments.The President will direct federal agencies to support climate-resilient investment [by directing] federal agencies to identify and remove barriers to making climate resilient investments … and encourage and support smarter, more resilient investments.
The lack of significant levels of additional funds for resilience reflects the fact that the president’s plan does not require new legislation or additional appropriations and instead would use existing funds for resilience efforts. The lack of substantial new revenue for community resilience will make it difficult to achieve the plan’s resilience goals. In order to truly make a difference and help communities prepare for future extreme weather, additional federal revenue will be necessary.
Two states, however, will receive significant federal revenue to invest in resilience. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013, passed by Congress earlier this year, includes funds to help New Jersey and New York recover from Superstorm Sandy. In addition, the law includes several billion dollars to help these states’ communities enhance their resilience to future storms and sea-level rise. But there will be little additional resilience assistance for the remainder of the nation.
It does not have to be this way, however. Earlier this year Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)and 39 other representatives endorsed a CAP proposal to create a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel to estimate future resilience needs and recommend a dedicated source of revenue to assist communities with these investments. Congress could then enact this bipartisan recommendation to provide resources to help communities become safer.
Similar to the CAP proposal, the president’s climate plan has a State, Local, and Tribal Leaders Task Force on Climate Preparedness. The administration should require the governors, mayors, and other officials on the panel to estimate the total cost of extreme weather resilience needs, as well as identify a source or sources of federal revenue to assist communities with these huge costs. Congress could then adopt the resilience revenue recommendation or devise an alternative way to provide communities with additional assistance. A federal investment in resilience should reduce net federal spending in the long run because stronger communities mean less damage from extreme weather—and subsequently, less federal disaster-relief aid.
The centerpiece of the president’s climate plan is the first-ever carbon-pollution reductions from existing power plants, the largest domestic source of climate pollution. Unfortunately, these long-overdue pollution reductions will be inadequate to immediately stem the rising tide of extreme weather linked to climate change. It is therefore essential that the federal government provide significantly more financial assistance to at-risk communities so they can better resist damages from severe wind, rain, drought, heat, and fires. The president should mandate that the climate task force assess resilience needs and identify a revenue stream to invest in communities’ plans, which would save lives, reduce damages, and save taxpayers money.
Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress.
* All of the 2010 disaster declarations were due to extreme weather, while 94 of the 99 disaster declarations in 2012 were due to extreme weather.
*******
Readers: Blog me your thoughts.
Rob: Only a little-dicked white boy like yourself and others like you, including the officer, would think my commentary or posting of that write is an overreaction, and find this kind of sick behavior perfectly fine. A real man would never treat any woman with such disrespect. But coming from boys, and there are plenty of them out there, you hide behind your toys for what you lack in the sack. Yes, this girl does have opinions and you just heard another one.
George, WN: I would expect nothing less coming from you.
Peace & Love.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
August 6th, 2013 at 9:11 am
You will never get the GOP to accept weather problems.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:13 am
What’s it going to take to make the idiots understand erratic swings from floods to heatwaves and drought caused by climate change is devastating harvests.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:14 am
President Obama’s physician claims ObamaCare has placed a spotlight on the fact that our Harvard-graduate-with-no-paper-trail-turned-president is thoroughly detached from reality and from the American people as well.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:17 am
Loved your comment to Rob. Couldn’t of said it better myself.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:20 am
We must do everything we can to preserve the viability of cities (and c40cities.org) which have the potential of being large scale net zero positively disruptive engines capable of slowing accelerating climate change.
Whole system net zero hazard mitigating strategies must be developed and broadly deployed such as highly resilient net zero transit, infrastructure, and building retrofit
August 6th, 2013 at 9:21 am
So expensive programs of building infrastructure to protect cities are being planned. This, of course, will use huge amounts of fossil fuels thus exacerbating climate change.
Wouldn’t it be smarter to invest most of this money on actual reduction of CO2 output instead of increasing it? Instead of treating the symptoms, it’s better to attack the disease.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:22 am
July 1, 2013, the state of California added $0.035 per gallon to the excise taxes on gasoline. The State Highway funds are drying up as automobiles now get far better gas mileage. One of the results hopefully will be that it acts as yet another incentive to seek transportation with high mpg.
At the Federal level, the tax rate on gasoline has not changed since 1993. In the mean time, inflation has given those funds some 33% less purchasing power. Some 60% of this tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund.
While the intended impact increased mileage standards is to reduce CO2 level, the unintended consequence seem to be a reduction in the funding necessary to build new or repair existing infrastructure. Is this the first step towards Kunstler like World Made by Hand?
I am not sure, but the policy wonks need to find a way to deal with it. Probably one of the few things that the now new taxes under any circumstance Republicans and the very progressives Democrats can agree on is that new or increased taxes on gasoline are a bad thing, though their rational is different. Maybe they are both wrong.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:24 am
The vision one sees out here with the human eye would be a kaleidoscope of colors.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:26 am
Rollin, a net zero transportation probably has minimum build out emissions and probably lots of energy retrofits for buildings which can be done along with hazard mitigation.
Whole system design must consider minimum emissions along with hazard mitigation.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:33 am
General Anesthesia Linked to Dementia…Even Years Later
Given a choice, many people would prefer to have general anesthesia and sleep through surgery rather than have local anesthesia and be awake for the procedure.
But this may change their minds—there’s worrisome new evidence that general anesthesia significantly increases a person’s risk of developing dementia. Scarier still, this risk may remain elevated even years after the surgery is over, a recent French study suggests.
The participants, all of whom were 65 or older, were interviewed and examined at the beginning of the study…and then again two, four, seven and 10 years later. Each exam included a cognitive evaluation to screen for dementia.
From the two-year follow-up onward, 7,008 nondemented participants were asked at each follow-up whether they had had anesthesia since the last follow-up and, if so, what type they’d received.
Analysis:
Over the next eight years, 9% of the study participants were diagnosed with some type of dementia, most often Alzheimer’s disease.
After adjusting for other health problems that might have influenced the results, the researchers calculated that receiving general anesthesia at least once during the study increased the seniors’ risk of developing dementia by a startling 35%, compared with participants who did not receive anesthesia.
Caveats: It’s way too early to say whether or not general anesthesia actually causes dementia, but this study does show a worrisome association. What could be behind this link?
Researchers suspect that certain anesthetizing drugs promote inflammation of parts of the nervous system and/or trigger formation of beta-amyloid plaques and other precursors to Alzheimer’s disease.
As for whether the same long-term risk applies to younger people who receive general anesthesia, only additional research can answer that question.
Exploring safer options:
Are you facing surgery or some other medical procedure for which general anesthesia may be used? If the procedure isn’t truly necessary, it’s worthwhile to consider all your nonsurgical options before you agree to go under the knife.
If you do need the procedure, ask your doctor whether local anesthesia, a sedative or a relatively new technique called ultrasound-guided nerve block might be an appropriate alternative to general anesthesia.
If general anesthesia is unavoidable—or if you received general anesthesia in the past, particularly if you had it repeatedly—it would be wise to talk with your doctor about how the two of you can be on the lookout for early warning signs of dementia in the coming years.
For dementia patients, early detection offers the best chance for optimal management of the condition.
Source: A study, “Exposure to general anaesthesia could increase the risk of dementia in elderly,” from researchers at the University of Bordeaux, France, presented at Euroanaesthesia, the annual meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:35 am
Admit it Michelle, you love niggers.
August 6th, 2013 at 9:42 am
What will be the punishment for Japan? They continue to dump Fujushima’s radioactive water into the sea.
Our colonies are directly affected. We don’t feel that we should have to counsel this.
August 8th, 2013 at 11:01 pm
[...] I’ve not even begun to address the abominable situation 11y7/^2 is experiencing. I hope to shed what little light I do know about that in a follow up post. [...]