By: Amanda Savitt and Samantha Montano
Joe Biden announced a new climate plan to much fanfare this week. The plan was a welcome relief for many on the left who have pushed for a more aggressive climate agenda. The details of the plan certainly represent significant progress on climate issues, compared to previously proposed plans. Still, several climate-relevant issues have yet to be addressed by the presumptive Democratic nominee.
One criticism of climate change policy discussions broadly has been the absence of emergency management. Emergency management is the function that guides mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts related to disasters. An obvious consequence of the climate crisis is changing national risk and, ultimately, worse disasters. Therefore, one would expect emergency management policy to be central to our climate change conversations, especially because the emergency management system is already on the frontlines of many climate-related disasters.
In the new plans, there is no direct mention of emergency management but there are tasks that emergency managers typically do scattered throughout. For example, in one new plan related to environmental justice and equitable economic opportunity, mitigation planning and disaster recovery, two key tasks overseen by emergency managers, are included. Surprisingly, and confusingly, the plan identifies them as tasks for which CDC and HHS will be responsible, rather than FEMA.
Under a section on managing communities risks from public health emergencies, the plan calls for CDC grants to be dispersed to states and territories for “local health departments to develop climate disaster mitigation plans.” The use of the term “climate disaster” here implies though that they are referring to more than just public health emergencies. The plan specifically defines climate disaster as including “heat waves, sea-level rise, wildfire, air pollution, infectious disease, hurricane, and floods”. Currently, disaster mitigation plans, including many of these climate-related disasters, fall squarely within the purview of emergency management agencies under the guidance of FEMA.
The plan also directs HHS to set up a task force that, among other things, will develop “a ready-to-deploy recovery strategy that ensures adequate housing for individuals displaced by climate disasters”. Again, the use of the term “climate disasters” here implies this applies to more than just public health emergencies. Further, it is not clear how this relates to the National Disaster Recovery Framework or any of the other housing-related programs overseen by FEMA and HUD.
Public health is an important part of the overall management of disasters, within which public health crises often emerge. Additionally, emergency management anticipates being relied on to help public health during public health emergencies. The obvious value of public health in the pandemic does not mean that they ought to be the government structure responsible for all disaster response, recovery, mitigation and preparedness. While there is a need for increased collaboration and coordination between these two systems, emergency management and public health have unique roles.
This is why the two proposals related to mitigation and recovery stand out in Biden’s plan. The idea that public health would subsume these key responsibilities of emergency management is surprising.
There seem to be two possible explanations. The first is that Biden’s proposal actually pertains only to public health, and the term “climate disasters” was inadvertently used inappropriately. Despite the VEEP-ness of this explanation, it is the less troubling alternative.
The other explanation aligns with the grand tradition of emergency management policy, in which a reactive change is made based on the failed response to the most recent disaster, rather than on our actual future risk. While everyone’s minds are understandably on the failures of the COVID response, including the limited capacity of both our public health and emergency management systems to manage the response, charging public health with emergency management functions is not the solution. In fact, it would fall into the longstanding trap of “preparing for the last disaster.”
After September 11, FEMA was absorbed into the Department of Homeland Security, and while the department continued to pay lip service to taking an all-hazards approach, terrorism and homeland security became a disproportionate focus for emergency management. This had major consequences for decisions about resourcing, training and planning, and contributed to the failed response to Hurricane Katrina and the levee failure.
As the response to COVID continues, it is understandable that Vice President Biden would be focused on its ongoing failures. Even if this reorganization isn’t what Biden is implying it would not be surprising to see other policymakers suggest similar ideas, as investigations of the failed COVID response are conducted and pressure mounts to implement changes. It would be detrimental, however, to restructure our emergency management system, including reassigning key emergency management tasks or otherwise subsuming emergency management into public health.
Currently, emergency management agencies are responsible for mitigation planning and recovery activities. Mitigation plans must be rewritten and approved every five years, and they entail numerous specific requirements that take experience and a deep knowledge of communities to meet. Recovery involves coordinating stakeholder groups and navigating a complex system of federal aid which requires extensive training and expertise. Local emergency managers already have expertise in these processes.
There is no question that improvements to both mitigation planning and recovery are desperately needed, especially in the context of the climate crisis. Reassigning these emergency management responsibilities to public health agencies, both federally and locally, however, is not the solution to that problem. In fact, doing so would likely create additional inefficiencies, limit the scope of mitigation and recovery plans and strategies, and require public health personnel to develop expertise on an unrealistic time scale, given the speed at which climate effects are becoming pronounced.
It is commendable that Biden has recognized the failures of the COVID-19 response have the potential to be echoed across future disasters and catastrophes. It is important to recognize, however, that the solutions to disaster response failures and appropriate adaptation to climate change have already been identified, and are rooted in existing structures. Policy proposals should be evidence-based, and should build on existing policies and structures, rather than recreate those structures in different agencies.
We cannot effectively address the climate crisis without substantively and specifically including emergency management in climate policy. The response to COVID reminds us that our emergency management system is not as strong as it needs to be. As climate-driven disasters continue to occur these problems will become more dire.