Attempting to identify global trends for homeland security-related leaders is arduous since threats manifest themselves in various ways. However, when looking towards the future, it is helpful to look at recent events for potential omens. “Storm of the century” scenarios are occurring at a more rapid pace and appear suggestive of the alarming impact climate change may have in store for our homeland.

Hurricane Katrina was nature’s version of a weapon of mass destruction attack on the Gulf Coast causing catastrophic damage to an area the size of Great Britain. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the hardest hit communities lost all infrastructure: electricity; water and sewer; roads and bridges; communication systems; and, in some instances, basic governmental operations including law enforcement. Katrina also had severe effects on America’s energy infrastructure, taking crude oil production and refinery capacity off-line for an unprecedented length of time. The protracted effects to critical infrastructure highlighted disaster recovery and resilience issues following a major hurricane in this country.

When discussing hurricanes in the context of climate change, it is important to note that most scientists believe that climate change and hurricanes cannot be linked directly with each other. Instead, major hurricanes provide a glimpse of what climate change—which scientists predict will exacerbate the severity and number of extreme weather events—might mean for the future. Hurricane Sandy generated an estimated $82 billion in damages just in the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut resulting in President Obama’s request to Congress for $60 billion in hurricane relief aid. According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, eight of the top ten costliest hurricanes have occurred since 2000 with over $280 billion spent on hurricane relief. In this new climate, the federal government will be forced to expend more precious dollars in disaster response and recovery efforts.

In response to criticism of the government’s responses to Katrina and Sandy, FEMA has been provided substantial new authority to remedy existing gaps and develop a more robust preparedness mission. DHS now has a well-defined emergency management framework grounded in the four areas of hazard mitigation, enhanced preparedness, effective emergency response, and rapid recovery. Unfortunately, as we look to a future of climate change and evolving risks, we must adapt to these dynamics in an austere budget environment. The government has fewer resources to maintain it base capabilities in responding to these threats. DHS has to assume that its interrelated missions and responsibilities will overload existing capabilities more significantly in the years ahead. Simply, the effects of climate change could overwhelm the government’s disaster-response capabilities.

Policy measures to address the effects of climate change are subject to great partisan debate. Opponents against such measures argue that government funds spent to mitigate risks of climate change are unwarranted since the threat is unverified. Global warming, they say, is part of the planet’s normal climatic cycle. Proponents for global warming policies focus on the longer term goals to address greenhouse gas emissions, a popular culprit for the warming planet.

Despite the arguments and level of uncertainty about the projected extent of climate change, the government would be wise to remain focused on how best to at least mitigate the worst effects of the change on the nation’s critical infrastructure and vulnerable areas. By seeking to avoid the worst effects, the government can provide effective policy solutions that will provide resiliency in a fiscally challenged environment. The government should incentivize individuals and companies to reduce their own risk. Federal funded disaster insurance should discourage dangerous coastal settlements as building or rebuilding in disaster prone areas will further burden an already challenged economy. Today, many areas prone to earthquakes enforce building codes for earthquake-resistant structures helping to minimize the loss of life resulting from building collapse. Similar policies should be enforced along coastal areas prone to hurricanes and flooding.

Stephen Flynn, author of The Edge of Disaster: Rebuilding a Resilient Nation, proposes an infrastructure investment program to “climate proof” critical infrastructure. He asserts that funds spent to reduce risks ahead of time will be less costly than funds needed to rebuild the same infrastructure. Flynn’s claims appear to have some merit. According to a 2005 article by humanitarian news source IRIN, the World Bank and the US Geological Survey estimate that economic losses worldwide from natural disasters in the 1990s could have been reduced by $280 billion if $40 billion had been invested in preventive measures. In contrast, the World Bank estimated that the $3.15 billion spent by China on flood control over the past four decades has helped to avert losses of about $12 billion.

However, with approximately 85% of the nation’s critical infrastructure belonging to the private sector, the question of who appropriately bears the costs of such upgrades is an acceptable one. The private sector’s profit motive provides little incentive for increased spending on preventive measures. Firms clearly want to protect their assets; however determining precisely what is an acceptable level of resiliency is difficult. Others argue that the government’s focus on infrastructure protection will thwart necessary efforts focused on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

In the context of the current fiscal climate, the government must take the lead and generate private and public funds to address our most vulnerable critical infrastructure needs. The partisan debate surrounding taxes make it highly unlikely for using increased tax revenue in this area. The government should ensure that future funds administered under the Stafford Act be utilized appropriately to rebuild and strengthen vulnerable critical infrastructure. It is time to debate the merits of continuously rebuilding in disaster prone areas and mandate building codes or relocation policies whenever possible. The government must also ensure that communities proactively engaged in preventative measures be recognized and not further victimized by red tape bureaucracy. By reducing future response and recovery costs and maintaining a resilient infrastructure, state and local governments can further avoid the devastating effects of the changing climate and maintain strong and vibrant communities.