Prepare or React?

How do you take credit for what does not happen? If our government successfully deters another nation from even thinking about attacking American assets, taking down a power grid, how exactly do those responsible for that deterrence convince legislators, politicians and the electorate that they actually did something that saved lives? Likewise, if an efficient state governor lines up preventative resources, actually creates a policy that prevents or limits damage from, say, wildfires or flooding, how does he or she get to take credit for what did not happen?

California’s Jerry Brown, about to end his gubernatorial career, spent a lot of time trying to prevent or mitigate disasters that seem to define California life. Not enough, it seems. Wildfires, dams breaking, flooding, drought, rising seas, power grid overload, smog alerts, earthquakes, street failures, levees eroding, mudslides, water shortages, etc, etc. Gavin Newsom, likely his successor, isn’t exactly campaigning on a platform of prioritizing readiness. But to those of on the “left coast,” man-induced climate change has been fierce. Nevertheless, every governor knows that  his/her legacy is most probably going to be defined by their response to major catastrophes. California is just, well, the poster state for pollution, infrastructure issues and climate change issues.

“[N]atural disaster is an inextricable part of the California experience. And just as it upended [the lives of so many Californians,] disaster threatens to snarl the next governor’s plans. Emergency response is rarely discussed as a campaign issue, but once in office, the governor’s on-the-ground handling of unexpected catastrophe and its immediate aftermath can define his legacy, for good or bad.

“‘A governor should expect that his agenda is going to be interrupted at some point by natural or man-made disaster. It’s just going to happen,’ said former Gov. Gray Davis, whose faced an unexpected power crisis while in office. ‘Nobody wants to think about it, but you need to prepare for it.’

“How a state’s chief executive responds when calamity strikes often makes it into the history books. The choices a governor makes ahead of disaster are no less consequential — and often present high political risk with little payoff.

“‘The first principle is that [governors] get rewarded for how they react to crises to a greater degree than whether they act to prevent them,’ said Bruce Cain, professor of political science at Stanford University.

“The disaster currently occupying headlines — wildfires that have ravaged the state in historic proportions these last two years — has pushed the policy debate over fire prevention to the forefront.

“But experts say the next stage of the discussions must confront how we build communities to better withstand fire, a topic that has long been politically fraught. Disaster preparedness is expensive — whether it’s retrofitting buildings and highways to withstand quakes, improving water infrastructure to prevent deadly floods or deciding if development should be allowed in fire-prone areas… When governors challenge the status quo, ‘the resistance is enormous,’ Cain said… ‘How do you make the case to voters to do this really, really difficult thing?’…

“The immediate aftermath of a disaster is a punishing test of one’s ability to lead. But there can also be a silver lining: crisis-sparked momentum that can break through political logjams. Spending money to prevent disaster from occurring, however, gets no such boost… ‘Money always seems to be available to clean up a disaster, but much less is available to prepare for it,’ Davis said.

“California’s largest cities have not endured a major earthquake in the last 20 years. Because of that, the next governor might not find sufficient popular desire to spend more state money on safety retrofits. A physical or cyber attack on the power grid could plunge the state into blackouts, but with scant public focus on that possibility, it’s unclear whether the next governor will make it a priority.

“Fire, however, weighs heavily on the minds of most Californians. Over the last year, California has contended with the largest, most destructive wildfires in its history. And the state projects that wildfires, along with other disasters, will be more extreme than previously thought because of climate change.

“On the campaign trail, the gubernatorial candidates have laid out different approaches to wildfire. Republican John Cox has backed more logging to help manage overcrowded forests. Democrat Gavin Newsom has emphasized the links between fire and climate change, and has talked about deploying new technology to detect blazes early.

“But there are a number of other policies the next governor will have to weigh. Will it be continued emphasis on vegetation management — thinning out brush and other plants on public land that fuel conflagrations? What about defensible space? The state requires homes in high fire-risk areas to have 100-foot buffers around them, and some counties have stricter requirements, but enforcement can be spotty.

“Should the state require buildings to be more fire resilient, with interior sprinklers, double-paned windows and protected vents to guard against flying embers? California law has set stringent requirements for new construction and significant home remodeling in areas with high fire risk. But those rules do not apply to older construction, and making those upgrades can be a costly prospect for homeowners.

“What about more money for state and local firefighters? The California Fire Chiefs Assn., for example, sought $100 million in the state budget to shore up the state’s overstretched Mutual Aid System — used by fire agencies to send manpower and equipment to fires outside their jurisdiction — and to enable agencies to pre-position their crews where fire is likely. The final budget included just a quarter of their request: $25 million…. The answer from experts: All of the above.” Los Angeles Times, September 30^th. Do we even allow people to rebuild in areas that we really cannot protect from expected natural disasters? Who pays for those losses?

California is at least a wealthy state that is dominated by a political system that truly accepts that air and water quality are of the highest priority and that man-made climate change is among the most expensive challenges we face in a modern society. Think about states, hell, the Trumpian federal government, where man-induced climate change is treated as a hoax and industrial polluters are protected by federal agencies from having to pay for the damage they inflict. Think of the horrific additional burdens we are all going to have to pay for because of the cavalier attitude of scientific denial in those pockets of malevolent ignorance. Oops! I think I hear another can being kicked down the road.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the trillions of dollars of additional and avoidable damage caused by governmental ignorance and lack of preparedness for inevitable natural disasters threatens to bring down entire political systems in their entirety.