FEMA’s Plan for Dealing With Natural Disasters Is Missing the Two Most Important Words

After a year of record-setting storms, the report only vaguely mentions “increasingly complex” natural hazards.

People rescue a cat left behind in Vidor, Texas following Hurricane Harvey.Julie Dermansky/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

In its first strategic plan following a tragic string of natural disasters—Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, the fires that ravaged California, and record-setting East Coast winter storms—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) boldly dodged the issue of climate change and the growing risk of these sorts of catastrophes.

The 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, released Thursday, doesn’t even mention the words “climate change,” or “sea-level rise.” It doesn’t even use the word “climate.” Instead, it vaguely refers to “rising natural hazard risk,” “emerging challenges of 21st century disasters,” and hazards that are becoming “increasingly complex and difficult to predict.” It also covers the risk of living near the coast and a steady increase of natural disasters, as well as the importance of “pre-disaster mitigation,” but it still dances around the real issue:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that from 1970 – 2010, shoreline counties increased in population by 40 percent, putting 39 percent of the American population in coastal areas. NOAA projects that an additional eight percent of Americans will live in coastal areas by 2020. Simultaneously, the average number of major disaster declarations has also steadily increased, rising from an average of 25 per year in the 1980s to nearly 90 per year since 2010.

Although the Nation must do more to assess and quantify these increasing risks, we do know that pre-disaster mitigation works. In 2018, an independent study by the National Institute of Building Sciences, co-funded by FEMA, found that for every $1 that the Federal Government invests in mitigation saves taxpayers an average of $6 in future spending. This return on investment justifies new opportunities for FEMA and our partners to reduce future disaster costs and accelerate recovery by investing now, before a disaster occurs. … Even as we strive to bring a greater share of Federal dollars to bear on pre-disaster risks, we will also educate and incentivize our partners to increase their investments in pre-disaster mitigation.

By contrast, the 2014-2018 Strategic Plan from President Barack Obama’s FEMA took a much more direct approach to talking about climate change:

Scientific evidence indicates that the climate is changing and significant economic, social, and environmental consequences can be expected as a result. A changing climate is already resulting in quantifiable changes to the risks communities face, showing that future risks are not the same as those faced in the past…The emergency management community will need to adapt appropriately to these changing risks as they strengthen their risk management programs.

Trump FEMA Administrator Brock Long has avoided questions on climate change in the past, telling Bloomberg in August, “The term climate change has become such a political hot button that I think it keeps us from having a real dialogue.” A month later, he told CNN, “Regardless of what causes disasters, it’s our job within the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA to manage the consequences.” 

FEMA did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.

Update 8:10 PM: FEMA’s director of Public Affairs, William Booher, responded to Mother Jones: “It is evident that this strategic plan fully incorporates future risks from all hazards regardless of cause. Building upon the foundation established by FEMA’s previous two Strategic Plans, this plan commits the agency, and the nation, to taking proactive steps to increasing pre-disaster investments in preparedness and mitigation.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate