Super-Weather Response

            Is climate change still controversial? Climate change means extreme weather. We just got hit by a Superstorm. Last year we had a bunch of Supertornadoes to go along with “hundred year” droughts and floods, which are now occurring every couple of years. We had 14 billion dollar disasters last year and seven so far this year. All we need is a giant lizard wreaking havoc. So we are now experiencing Super-weather. Are there capes involved? Aren’t there supposed to be Super-Heroes to protect us?

            Is “global warming” occurring? There is no doubt of it for those who observe rather than “believe”. The numbers are clear. 2012 was the warmest year since records began to be kept in 1895. Temperatures continue to rise globally every year for the past few decades. Expect coastal sea levels to rise by two feet, with storm surges averaging eight feet by 2050. By 2100, expect coastal sea levels to rise by about six feet from present, with all the accompanying challenges that will bring. More water in the atmosphere means more extreme weather patterns. So weather will get more extreme more often. Welcome to the new normal.

            If a “storm of the century” happens every few years, it becomes a new normal and business as usual. So how does business become usual again when faced with the “unusual”? How do we protect our cities and communities from extreme weather?

            Most of us have lived in the State of Denial. There is a temptation when it dawns on us that something is “going on” to rush towards the State of Over-Engineering. “We have to build our cities to withstand (insert your naughty weather event here)”. We can’t afford it and it won’t help.

            If the future (and present) doesn’t resemble the past, it is difficult to predict what we need to do to protect ourselves. We can say with certainty we have to rethink how we build and where we build. It is not difficult to see that we could over-build and over-engineer in anticipation of upcoming Super-weather events.

            I would advocate that our goal and outcome to shoot for in renewing our communities and homes is resilience, how to “bounce back” quickly from an extreme event. We should retool our infrastructures, when we bother to rebuild them, to be engineered for resilience. We should likewise consider preparing our homes and families to increase resilience. Resilience involves changing our thinking in addition to changing our engineering.

            But aren’t our cities more environmentally conscious? Many of our large cities have green initiatives to reduce heat, emissions, and save money. Resilience is not yet a factor or priority in these designs. Since the Government is accountable to the People in this country, we should direct them to make it a consideration and priority.

             What specifically should we renew for resilience? First of all, anything underground such as subways, tunnels, sewers, and water treatment plants, or anything else that shouldn’t be an aquarium. This is less about making them waterproof and more about routing water out of them if needed.

            I could drone on a list of specifics important for resilience, but the bottom line is we all have to become more aware and committed to preparing for extreme weather events. We have to hold the decision makers and purse string holders accountable to prepare for such events. We need, as a society, to become more adaptive, constantly improving our ability to respond. This is true in our homes as well as in our communities. Is all of this “renewal” expensive? Sure, but consider the alternatives. And don’t wait until solutions are “perfect” to start implementing them. That’s part of adaptation. If we fail to adapt, we will shift our budget from the Pentagon to FEMA.

            A major component of the “global warming” controversy is how much people cause and perpetuate extreme weather. Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t care. The Super-Hurricane knocking at your door also doesn’t care what you “believe”. We need to work together to reduce emissions to get at the low end of climate change projections. If our lifestyles are promoting severe weather, for our sake and the sake of our kids, we might consider changing our lifestyles. Not because we “have to” but because it’s “smart to”.

            We should essentially create social wisdom around the subject of extreme weather. Our policy makers, insurers and private sector should partner to create new risk assessments and value estimates. We can’t live like we have always lived because our climate is changing. Extreme weather was not a factor in our past decision making. It is cost prohibitive to sustain the past or thoughtlessly create the future.

            We need a strategic perspective to making ourselves safer. The conversation is not more resilient structures versus emission reduction. This is not either/or. Do I stop smoking or get off my Cheetos diet to get healthier? We change our personal health after that first heart attack. We need to change our lives and society across the board because we will continue to get our butts kicked by Mother Nature.

            It is human nature to think and plan locally. To shift our thinking, it is important to keep our conversations local. Is my community, my house, my family prepared for an extreme weather event? What is the most important or cost effective steps we can take to become better prepared?

            Disasters are good opportunities for change. Governors say they will “rebuild”. If we rebuild the past rather than the future, we do ourselves and future generations a disservice. We sow the wind and will reap the whirlwind. 

Budget Breakdown

            Anyone suffering through a Congressional budget debate on C-SPAN has had their sensibilities assaulted with lies. Polite people and lawyers call these mendacity. Here are some hard facts about the Federal budget.

            Last year, 63% of money was spent without a Congressional vote. This autopilot spending went for past obligations made by past Congresses. Few legislators have the courage to make tough choices for future spending, much less renege on such past promises.

            Our social safety net sucks up quite a bit of this money. In 1960, 9.5% of the federal budget went to health care. Currently, 25% of the federal budget goes to health care. The CBO estimates that in 10 years, healthcare costs will be 33% of the federal budget. We cannot control spending without controlling healthcare costs.

            So if around two thirds of our Congressional budget is on autopilot, why can't we just fire some of the people on those fat Federal payrolls and reduce our spending? The difference between what our government owes in what our government brings in is called a deficit. Our national deficit is currently over $1 trillion. The combined wages and benefits of all federal employees is $435 billion. We couldn’t put a dent in our $16 trillion debt by firing everybody in the Government, including the military. Rather than bankrolling a bunch of employees, the numbers indicate that most of the money Washington takes him if sent back out in benefits, contracts, and assistance to States.

            Military spending accounts for about 20% of the federal budget, around $700 billion. This amount is more than the combined spending of the next 17 largest military budgets. Feel safer yet? Do you want to continue to pay for us to be the worlds policeman?

            Look at the scope of these appropriations. Congress tells the Defense Department they have to have 11 aircraft carriers. Bear in mind that other nations have one. If you have an aircraft carrier, it has to be replaced every five years and this costs $11 billion. Do we have to have 11? $11 billion would replace 750,000 shoulder, knee and hip joints under Medicare. This is the scope of decisions made at this level.

            An additional 20% of the federal budget goes to Social Security. So three areas account for 65% of the Federal budget. The rest of the budget is for everything else. What spending would you advocate cutting, and what do you base your decision on? Sorry, Big Bird.

            The interest on the federal debt deserves a mention. The federal debt was created by Alexander Hamilton, who convinced the States to consolidate their debts into a single Federal debt. Last year the interest on the Federal debt was $220 billion. This is larger than the combined budgets of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and the Federal courts combined. Last year, 6% of Federal spending went towards interest on the national debt. Bear in mind that the rates of other nations charged to buy our debt is at historic lows. If the international climate changes, the rates could become much higher.

            A budget breakdown would be incomplete without mentioning revenue or taxes. The hard facts are that taxes on the middle class, the primary source of Federal revenue, have been declining for the last 30 years. This hard fact may come as a surprise to some in the middle class. In 1979 before the Reagan tax reforms, middle-class tax rates were around 19%. In 2007, before the Crash, middle-class tax rates were 14%. They have continued to decline since then.

            So where are the decisions made which divide up our $3.7 trillion national budget? Are they made in Congressional subcommittees or before the cameras of C-SPAN? Nay, Nay! They made in private meetings with lobbyists. The hard facts are that lobbyists keep legislators in their jobs, so lobbyists greatly influence how our national budget is spent. In 2011, Treasury took in $1.3 trillion in taxes. Loopholes influenced by lobbyists accounted for an additional $1.1 trillion in lost revenue.

            It is the role and responsibility of the free press and informed citizens to question the decisions made by legislators, particularly involving health care and defense. Our conversations should be less about individual beliefs and ideology and more about benefits to all Americans. I encourage you, an informed public, to make your voices heard this election day. Remember, Presidents can't spend money or create debt. That is the province of Congress. Bear this in mind when you place your hope and trust.

     
       We are on the brink of an economic cliff in December. Since Congress didn’t have the balls to make tough choices, mandatory budget cuts will go into effect, gutting 5.1% of GDP in one year. Such cuts during a struggling recovery are economic suicide. Our economic challenges are all solvable, if legislators work together to cut a deal benefiting all of us. We need a balanced bipartisan solutions. Legislators actually have to govern, not be ideological purists. If you hate a broken Congress and broken System, don’t put one in place with your vote. Current voting trends indicate an 80-90% partisan ticket. You can’t have it both ways, winning an election for “your side” and having a Congress that works. I voted for both Democrats and Republicans this election, depending on who is willing to work together. I recommend you do the same. Our economic suicide is in your hands and the message you send.