\n\tH<\/span>ow a country's government decides to address climate change sets the tone for climate change agenda across its, agencies, organizations and even their private sector. If government takes an aggressive approach, and sets a clear and actionable agenda, the people will rally around that agenda and the benefits will be evident not only for that country, but for the entire world. If, however, government takes a lukewarm approach, or denies the current or future impacts of the dramatic change in our climate, then agencies and other government representatives are limited in their ability to address and plan for those impacts. Countries without a clear agenda that do not make urgent the need to address climate change will see the same indifferent attitude in their population. A lack of action will ultimately play out globally as well.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tIn the United States, the White House has published many reports, been involved in global meetings, and supported other governments in setting agenda around climate change. Despite all this, clear and actionable tasks have not been requested of the American people. The US is the second largest contributor, behind China, to the world's greenhouse gasses and global warming. As such, federal departments, government agencies, and public administrators at every level lack an understanding of their ability to impact outcomes.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tWith the release of the National Climate Assessmen<\/em>t (May 2014), it is widely anticipated that regulations from the White House will follow – after all, we cannot report that climate change is happening, produce scientific data that points strongly toward human activities, and then do nothing. Strong direction from the top is definitely needed. Without top-down guidance, agencies are left on their own to determine what, if any planning and consideration will be given to climate change, global warming and the impacts of both on their specific missions.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tEmergency managers and other public administrators are looking for direction as they begin connecting the dots between apparent changes and their own responsibilities. Soft language or argumentative discussion lend to poor planning and\/or an overall lack of action as planners decide to wait for further or more clarifying instruction. FEMAs language attempts to tackle issues facing emergency mangers, but falls far short of being instructive or direct:\n<\/p>\n

\n\t"Scientists predict that climate change will cause more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, wildfires, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels. This may alter the types and magnitudes of hazards that communities and emergency management professionals face, impacting mitigation, preparedness, and response and recovery operations…Emergency managers may therefore want to consider how changing natural hazard risks could impact their states, communities, and organizations in the future. At FEMA we call this ‘climate change adaption.'"<\/em> (Reference: FEMA LLIS)\n<\/p>\n

\n\tUsing soft language like "this may<\/em> alter the types and magnitudes of hazards" and "emergency managers may<\/em> therefore want to consider" provides no direction, and implies a lack of necessity. In FEMAs defense, it is difficult to provide concrete direction when there is no support from top officials, and those who strive to make solid plans around even the most scientific information get turned away. When government branches like the Department of Defense are barred from considering the impacts of climate change on their global operations by the House of Representatives, as has just happened, there is little hope that other government extensions will attempt to do the same. As a result of the conflict between federal reports and federal action, more soft language will be found, and less proactive work will be done.\n<\/p>\n

\n\tSo where do Emergency Managers go for information and direction? Like Mother Nature, emergency management should stay non-partisan. FEMA may have to wait for the White House to develop and promote an aggressive climate change agenda before providing emergency managers with a framework for planning and mitigation; but local emergency managers have always been responsible for tailoring national frameworks and determining best practices in their local jurisdiction. For this reason, it is imperative that local agencies become champions for those outcomes they know to be inevitable. We need to get educated about changing hazardscapes, and become educators of our communities. We need to rethink the way we spend our small budgets, and secure equipment and services. But perhaps most importantly, we need to become true advocates for emergency preparedness regardless of the political landscape or possible opposition.\n<\/p>\n

\n\t \n<\/p>\n