Living Within Our Means Part 2
In 1978, our federal government created the Federal Emergency Management Act, or FEMA, to not only provide disaster relief funds, but also to respond to terrorist events. From 1992 to 2021, approximately $409 billion was spent by this agency for severe weather aid, whereas prior to that time, from 1978 through the 1980s, it paid about $1 billion per year in relief funds. Now jump forward to 2012-2017, when the climate relief cost increased to $195 billion, or roughly $28 billion per year.
The following is another example of why our nation simply can’t say “No” to extreme weather relief funds required on our soil. Recently, on March 3, 2024, $138 billion of supplemental disaster funding was approved by Congress for the 2017-2019 hurricanes, California wildfires and other environmental disasters, which is not a complete financial cure. In summary, FEMA covers a large percent of the total cost requirement for climate disaster expenditures. The balance of the damages is paid by insurance companies, private businesses, individuals. . .or no one. All during this time, the U.S. incurs another loan, and another, and another.
What’s worrying is the fact that America is the world’s largest donor by a landslide! In 2023, due mostly to the funding of Ukraine and supporting Israel, the foreign aid check we wrote was roughly $70 billion. And there is a Baltimore bridge that must be rebuilt.
How does Congress say, “No”?
On a global scale, climate disasters cost world societies an estimated $4 trillion in losses. As this amount increases year after year, the question becomes: How much will industrial nation’s economies have to spend on climate change resilience in the form of sustainable food, drinkable water and shelter while doing its share of impoverished nation financial support? Where will all this global money come from as deficit spending escalates and what will be our nation’s share?
I’m quite certain that any government saying “No” to certain spending measures is the only alternative because raising revenues (taxes) won’t be acceptable to the individual, small businesses and corporate taxpayers who, for the most part, do everything they can to avoid paying their fair share in the first place. Crazy that these very taxes are what support the global economy, isn’t it? I wonder if that would be the case if those same dollars went towards personal gain, such as a taxpayer’s home? But shouldn’t there be no limit to home spending if the money is there? What about our bigger home called America? Or the ultimate home called Earth? Isn’t Earth the home that matters the most? Certainly the less than wealthy have no surplus funds for more of a tax burden. So, until the top 1%, and corporate America, broaden their definition of ‘home,’ the national debt will continue to escalate with global warming being the number one reason.
The climate change cost impact to any nation’s financial stability is divided between property damage, infrastructure betterment and related service expenses. At the Copenhagen UN climate summit of 2009, industrialized nations agreed to raise $95 billion per year for the public funding of poverty stricken countries. Sadly, by the end of last year, a total of about $20 billion had been raised because $95 billion per year is simply unaffordable given the list of fiscal priorities confronting the developing nations.
And as global warming accelerates, it will not be possible for the donor nations to step it up on behalf of the poorer countries. Given Russia’s goal to resurrect the Russian states starting with Ukraine, Iran’s motivation to put Israel out of business and China’s ambition to dominate the world in terms of most everything consumable, I don’t see how global climate disaster funding becomes the top priority. Already, the world debt is closing in on 100% of the World’s GDP, so the deprived nations won’t receive much in climate relief funds from the very developers that brought the climate crisis on.
Our nation alone must concentrate on solving border migration, cyber attacks, staying current militarily, out-of-control inflation, etc., etc. Simply put, with all the other challenges facing our country second by second, the U.S. will never be able to fund from within, the billions, then trillions of dollars brought on by foreign climate change requirements of disaster relief, mitigation and adaptation.
For this analysis, let’s suppose nations begin to default on a portion or all they have borrowed. Some say, “Not to worry. That dire situation won’t cause a country to run out of money and file bankruptcy since all we have to do is keep borrowing, or. . .print more money!”
I have been trying to understand how to interpret that and to date, I’m not getting very far. From what I have read, “print money” doesn’t literally happen. Rather, the Fed can add funds to our nation’s money supply, but that is not prudent because of the resulting inflation that would torpedo our economy. With U.S. tax increases nearly impossible, I believe the question of what to do about our national debt will be handed over from one presidential administration to the next until. . .who knows?
It’s all very complicated and I am far from being an economist. How the U.S. can continue to spend money that’s unavailable is beyond my scope of reasoning. Regardless, human caused global warming must never be the final straw that breaks the federal checkbook. With what I learned about the true meaning of national debt, my unyielding mission for fossil fuel energy to step aside ASAP in favor of clean energy is more determined now than ever before.
Let’s all be a part of this mission.