Bill Gates Gets Waffly On Climate Change; Activists Get Nervous

The influential billionaire Bill
Gates has done some rethinking
on how to fund the battle against
climate change. That has climate
activists nervous and has 
the Trump people falsely
crowing they've "won" the
battle against the climate
change "hoax."

Bill Gates caused a stir this past week with his latest hot take on climate change. Climate scientists were not impressed. And they worried the influential Gates would help gut efforts to combat the issue.  

They also worried - correctly - that the Trump and MAGA crowd would twist Gate's words and declare some sort of "victory" over climate change activism.  

Gates' statements weren't radical, and unlike people of a certain political persuasion, he certainly has a firm grasp on facts. 

But Gates' latest thoughts could upend where and how much money is spent combating climate change, and the crises that are caused in part, but not entirely on climate change. 

Basically, Gates is saying that climate change is important, but in the near future, you'll get more bang for your buck if you pour money into global poverty relief than climate change. 

He put his thoughts into an essay he released Tuesday. 

 Gates wrote:

"Although climate change will have serious consequences - particularly for people in the poorest countries - it will not lead to humanity's demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.

"Unfortunately, the doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it's diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world."

In short, Gates stated what he said was this truth: "Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization."

He said near-term resources should prioritize erasing poverty and disease, and improving the overall wellbeing of humankind. Climate change needs attention, he says, but there are bigger fish to fry, figuratively speaking. 

The bottom line, Gates said, is, "How do we make sure aid spending is delivering the greatest possible impact for the most vulnerable people?"

What's really needed, Gates says, is to increase the wealth of nations to make their people healthier and safer. True, when nations get wealthier, their energy use, and thus carbon emissions go up. But Gates believes we can innovate our way out of spewing these greenhouse substances into the atmosphere. 

However, many climate scientists, like Kristie Eli of the University of Washington, told the Associated Press that faster deployment of green technologies alone is not enough to overcome the rising effects of climate change.

Others said Gates raises good points, but he's framing the question of  climate change incorrectly. 

 Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said on Bluesky: 

"If you take the time to read the whole Gates memo (which I did), the bulk of the content was mostly solid and encouraging. Really!

It was the FRAME that was off -- very, very THAT'S the problem."

"Climate change is not a separate bucket" Hayhoe told Axios. "The reason we care about climate change is that it's the hole in every bucket."

What she's saying is climate change represents a threat that makes all those other problems worse, or creates them when they weren't there originally. 

Other climate experts, like Bill McKibben, note that climate change is already costing a LOT of money and is impoverishing people throughout the world. So if you really want to fight poverty, you have to go full bore on climate change, along with all the other forms of aid out there. 

Another worry is that Gates, who has such influence as one of the world's wealthiest men, might shift too many resources away from climate change. Worse, it might encourage people with an agenda to misconstrue Gates' opinion piece into a call to ignore climate change.

At the same time, Gates; thoughts on climate change and other philanthropic needs might be a victim of changed political realities caused by the very people who deny climate change. 

Like the Trump administration. 

Trump predictably mischaracterized Gates' statements right away. 

"I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax.... Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue. It took courage to do so, ,and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!," Trump blathered on his social  media site Truth Social.

Never mind he didn't win anything, that Gates never made any admission he's wrong, and the billionaire founder of Microsoft doesn't suddenly think climate change is a hoax. 

It also appears that Gates is reacting to the Trump administrations horrifically deep foreign aid cuts, which is making the crises of poverty and death and conflict worse.  So, other groups need to step in, Gates indicated. 

In the absence of the U.S., foreign aid, help from organizations to combat poverty, hunger and disease is greater than ever. 

Critics Gates's essay say such funding is important, but so is money for climate change efforts. Again, it's a matter of not one or the other, but both. 

"Both are utterly feasible, and readily so, if the Big Oil lobby is brought under control," said Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. 

Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field also has a dual priority approach. "We should invest for both the long term and the short term....A vibrant long-term future depends on both tackling climate change and supporting human development," he said in an email response to the Associated Press. 

Money isn't unlimited. But Gates at least is the only big billionaire I'm aware of who is giving large portions of his wealth to help others. I'm not seeing the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg doing the same thing. 

Maybe Gates isn't quite right in his analysis of climate change funding. And his essay didn't do any favors for those in the trenches trying to combat climate change and encourage others to do so. 

Gates is no hero in my book, but the fact that he's doing something positive is more than I can so for most of the ultra rich.  

ICE Barbie Has GOP Angry Over Her Micromanaging, Which Screws Disaster Victims

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem,
AKA Ice Barbie, is one of the people demonstrators
will object to during tomorrow's No Kings marches.
One of the things she's doing is slow walking
FEMA disaster aid, leaving storm victims
wondering if they'll ever get help. 

It looks like millions of people will take to the streets across the nation Saturday in "No Kings" protest against the Trump administration's authoritarian tendencies. 

Much of the public's ire is with Department of Homeland Security Kristie Noem, or, as she's often called,  ICE Barbie. 

Many of the protestors  are fed up with the bullying, violent and legally dubious, to put it mildly, tactics of ICE agents who ultimately report to Noem. 

Meanwhile, frustration is also growing with ICE Barbie over disaster responses. 

ICE isn't the only thing that's got people hot and bothered, though it's likely the biggest problem people have with Noem. 

As climate change makes storms and other weather events worse and more extreme, more and more people will need disaster aid to cope with these calamities. 

However, Ice Barbie, whose agency oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency,  is gumming up the works.  

According to Notus.org:

"Most of the frustration centers around a rule Noem implemented that she must review and approve any expense over $100,000 at the Department of Homeland Security. at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, housed in DHS, this directive has significantly slowed the agency's normally routine processor distributing much needed funds to states trying to rebuild in the aftermath of natural disasters. 

Noem's micromanaging became widely noticed during and after the horrific, deadly Fourth of July floods in the Texas Hill Country.

The $100,000 rule and ICE Barbie's slow response to everything meant FEMA could not pre-position Urban Search and Rescue teams in a timely manner.  Noem reportedly didn't authorize FEMA's deployment of the urban search and rescue teams until more than 72 hours after the flooding started.  

Apparently, this problem continues to fester, if not get worse. Says Notus.org:

Concerns among lawmakers continue to grow, but publicly and privately. Some members have taken their complaints to administration officials, multiple sources told NOTUS."

Those complaining include Republican lawmakers, who are walking a self-imposed high wire. On the one hand, they can't get Trump or any of his minions annoyed because, I don't know, they'll get sent to a gulag in Uganda or something. On the other hand, these GOP Congress creatures must make sure their constituents are getting the attention they probably voted for. 

That's certainly true in North Carolina, which is still trying to get its feet under themselves after the devastating blow from Hurricane Helene last year. 

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) has put a hold on Department of Homeland Security nominees because FEMA is slow -walking billions of dollars worth of Helene aid to his state.  Budd said he doesn't have a problem with the DHS nominees and would vote for them, but first he wants to see promised aid get to the states Helene victims. 

Predictably, a DHS spokesperson got all snarky in a statement regarding Ice Barbie's $100,000 rule.  "Who are those members complaining? Democrats who shut down the government?," the spokesperson said in a statement. 

The spokeperson's statement claims Ice Barbie's policies have so far saved $13.2 billion because she reviews every DHS contract worth more than $100,000. "Despite constant criticism of this policy from the media and D.C. bureaucrats, results like these speak for themselves."

Or not. We don't know if the money "saved" is just because Ice Barbie hasn't gotten around to reviewing contracts that have been sitting around forever. I would like to see a spreadsheet of the contracts she rejected or modified to save money. 

FEMA has always been slow with relief money, especially once the immediate aftermath of the disaster has passed. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including liberal Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt have pushed for reform. 

But even getting Noem's attention is quite an effort. She's always cosplaying ICE goons, or getting in front of TV cameras to snarl at immigrants. 

'"The view among Republicans on the Hill is Secretary Noem is less interested in doing the blocking and tackling of her day job that she is with promoting herself in taxpayer funded TV-commercials,"' one GOP aide told NOTUS.

There's much more in this link to the NOTUS article.  

Vermont, Many Other States Losing Millions That Would Have Mitigated Future Disasters

Flooded homes in Richmond, Vermont, July, 2023. FEMA
is getting rid of funding nationwide that would help
states like Vermont and many others build resilience and
protection from the next inevitable 
climate-related disasters 

The frequency at which we here in Vermont have had destructive floods in recent years almost makes it seem like we're overdue for another big disaster. 

Thankfully, there's nothing even close to that is in the immediate forecast, but with climate change, future mega-rainstorms and extreme flash floods are inevitable. 

There's been a wise and understandable push to build resilience to future disasters here in Vermont and in so many other places around the nation. 

Predictably, the Turnip Trump administration doesn't think resilience is a good idea because A: They believe climate change is a hoax despite the Everest-sized mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise, and B: This resilience stuff would just benefit us "rubes" that don't matter and won't  further line the pockets of our Glorious Billionaires.  

Reports Vermont Public: 

"The Trump administration announced last week that it's canceling a disaster preparedness program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Stephanie Smith, the state Hazard Mitigation Officer, said Vermont will lose out on the $2 million it received annually from the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities fund.

She said the cancelation will also affect $2.7 million in funding that FEMA had awarded to about 40 projects in past years but had not yet been paid out."

Before Trump, we did receive quite a bit of money to help gird against future disasters.

Per Vermont Public: 

"Over the past five years, FEMA's so called BRIC program has allocated about $200 million annually for hazard mitigation projects such as flood control, infrastructure improvements and stream bank stabilization. Smith said most municipalities in Vermont have used the money to update local hazard mitigation plans and conduct scoping studies."

BRIC, of course is, or was, a national program.  It had made more than $5 billion available since 2020 to  help local projects that reduce the impact of disasters, reports the Washington Post. 

The elimination of this program is part of a broader Trump policy of shifting disaster recovery and preparation from the federal government to the states, which of course are often ill-prepared to cover the cost of these huge floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires and such. 

Per the Washington Post:

"'For small states, like Vermont and Wyoming, there's very little capability, especially at the local level,' said Erica Bornemann, who served as Vermont's emergency management director for 16 years and now works in disaster consulting. 

'It would take time for them not only to hire and fund the people necessary to respond to small to moderate scale disasters, but also to build a fund to support disaster survivors,' she said."

Predictably, the Trump FEMA people are dismissive of the idea of preparing for future disasters.

Says Vermont Public: 

"A spokesperson for FEMA said in a statement that the BRIC program was 'yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program."

Because spending, say,  $1 to prevent $100 in future damage is supremely stupid, apparently.

The Trump team and FEMA have reported already discussed disbanding the agency by as early as October 1, which would basically leave state and local government adrift if and when disaster strikes.

Moreover,  millions of dollars in already allocated FEMA funding has been frozen since January. Again, per Washington Post:

"Although a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release the funds, at least 19 states have not been able to access the money, according to a filing last week by a coalition of 24 states, including those hit recently by major disasters such as California, North Carolina, Kentucky and Hawaii. On Friday, a federal judge ruled the administration has violated his order by freezing the FEMA grants."

But, under Trump the rule of law is now more, He just blithely ignores court orders, as nobody seems to have the spine to contradict him for some reason.

We're at the height of tornado season now. Devastating flash floods tend to increase in the spring and summer, wildfire season will get roaring soon, and a few months, hurricane season hits in earnest. 

Climate change or not, there will be terrible weather disasters sooner rather than later. Most likely sooner. Trump has already abandoned the storm victims he pledged to help during his campaign. And he will continue to abandon people who will fall victim to storms. 

The result will be extra heartache, financial ruin, homelessness and probably many needless deaths. 

But like I said, Trump couldn't care less about "rubes" like us.  Makes you wonder why so many people voted for him. 

 

Current Congressional Government Shutdown Threat/FEMA Fight Is Small Hint Of Discord We'll See In Trump Administration

Congress has until Friday to pass a continuing 
resolution, and hopefully fund FEMA disaster
relief, though neither is a sure bet. 

The U.S. Senate plans to adjourn December 20, and there's a last ditch effort to pass some badly needed disaster relief money for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.  

That FEMA money would hopefully one part of a continuing spending resolution must pass or there will be a government shut down.  Yeah, Congress is kicking the can down the road again instead of just doing the budget like they're supposed to.

FEMA funding is emerging as a major sticking point. 

As NewsNation reports:

"While there is broad bipartisan support for disaster relief, some Republicans have raised concerns with the size and scope of the White House's request, particular proposed fund in areas like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency."

Against that backdrop,  Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vermont is pushing for giving FEMA at least $98 billion in emergency funding to cope with a slew of big U.S. disasters in recent months. As we well know, some of those disasters have occurred in Vermont. 

Welch said Congress hasn't passed comprehensive disaster aid since 2022 and the need is piling up. 

"The longer we wait to help disaster victims, the more disaster victims we will have. The list of needs will only grow Delay hurts, it doesn't help. That's why I am asking my colleagues in the Senate and the House to act now and act quickly. 

For Vermont, and for every state hit by a disaster since we passed a disaster bill so many storms ago....We cannot wait. We have common ground in our common crisis. We must send a disaster bill to President Biden's desk," Welch said. 

FEMA funding is more important than ever because, as Welch just told us, those disasters are piling up. More and more people live in places with dangerous weather, and climate change continues to make those disasters worse than they otherwise would be. And they're expanding in scope.

In the short term, between now and December 20, the biggest obstacle to potential FEMA funding is the so-called Freedom Caucus, 

The caucus would only support disaster funding if money is taken out of the budget somewhere else. In a statement last week, members of the Freedom Caucus said. "The House should consider only what is absolutely necessary right now to prove critical relief to hurricane victims and farmers, and pay for it with offsets from wasteful spending elsewhere in the government, then wait for President Trump to take office to better manage disaster relief."

As of Saturday, at least some observers seemed optimistic some disaster aid will be approved in a stopgap measure, even if it's not the $98 billion the Biden administration - and Sen. Welch - want.

No matter what happens with Congress and FEMA funding this week, the problem is going to keep getting worse.  Like it or not, the federal government is going to have to fund more and more money for disaster relief in the coming decade. 

Even though Donald Trump, about to enter the White House doesn't want to spend money on things like that. 

The Trump and MAGA people seem intent on making life as hard as possible for most working class people, including disaster victims.  I think disaster aid will be severely curtailed during the Trump administration, even as those disasters will almost surely keep piling up.

 If Trump and his minions have their way, disaster victims will be on their own more than ever.  Eventually, there will be a lot of angry people out there.  Before I go on, I'll make things clear that I don't want anybody to threaten violence or actually cause it. 

But you saw the visceral anger in the past couple weeks at the murderous and dystopian U.S. health care industry after the murder of the United Health CEO. 

If the new administration dares screw over disaster and climate victims over the next four years, it could get ugly. Even some of Trump's biggest fans will turn on him, though I admit his most rabid followers will make excuses for him.

The inevitable upcoming disasters and a lack of response to them will sow even more discord in the U.S., as if we don't have enough already.   

Biden Grants Disaster Approval For Vermont NEK Floods On July 30; FEMA Money In Question

President Biden just declared three Northeast Kingdom
counties disaster zones due to intense flash flooding
back on July 30.  This frees up assistance funds, but
that money might be slow in coming due to
federal funding shortfalls and delays. 

In a widely expected move,  President Joe Biden has declared three Vermont counties disaster areas due to catastrophic flooding in the Northeast Kingdom back on July 30.  

It seems like every time we turn around, part of Vermont is declared a disaster zone. 

This declaration involves Caledonia, Essex and Orleans counties affected by a rather localized but intense storm on the night of July 30. 

The overnight storm dumped over eight inches of rain on St. Johnsbury and surrounding areas in just a few hours, causing catastrophic flooding. 

This declaration, like the other ones declared this year in other parts of the state, means federal grants and low cost loans are becoming available to fix homes and businesses. 

Local municipalities, and the state government, along with some non-profit outfits might also get some funds on a cost-sharing basis to repair or replace damaged roads and other infrastructure. That money can also be used to build some mitigation projects to help fend off future disasters. 

Earlier this summer Lamoille County was declared a disaster area due to flash flooding and severe storms on June 23.  And of course seven Vermont counties were declare disaster zones due to July 10 and 11 flooding. 

NO FEMA MONEY?

The money for this newest disaster declaration - along with those two other declared for summer flooding in Vermont - might be slow in coming. 

Congress just passed - and Biden just signed - a bill for stopgap federal funding to keep the government lights on through December 20.  That prevented a partial government shutdown. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, had requested additional funds in the stopgap bill to cope with all the disasters that have been happening this year around the nation. That money was not included in this bill. 

On top of everything else, Hurricane Helene hit right after this bill lacking FEMA money was signed into law. Helene will likely be the nation's biggest and most expensive disaster this year, so I don't know how everybody in Vermont and elsewhere who needs the assistance will receive it. Or it might take forever to arrive. 

FEMA has money left to meet immediate needs. They can swoop into places like Florida and North Carolina this week to ensure the very short term emergency needs of disaster victims. 

But those kind of loans and grants to help businesses get back on their feet or to towns that have run out of money after fixing destroyed roads will probably have to wait. 

Under these lack of funding circumstances, "They delay anything that is not an urgent spending necessary for protection of life and property, and that means people return to their homes slower," Peter Muller, a senior officer with the Managing Risks Projects at Pew Charitable Trusts told Marketplace. 

"It means that businesses will reopen slower. It also means that projects that are intended to reduce the impact of the next disaster are going to be delayed." 

FEMA Funding Crisis Could Slow Vermont Flood Relief

Road crews begin flood repairs to Route 15 around the 
Wrong Way Bridge in Cambridge, Vermont on July 12.
Immediate funding from FEMA is not in danger, but
rebuilding money might be delayed as the federal
agency is running out of money for the fiscal year.

Is FEMA running out of money?

The apparent answer is yes, but that doesn't mean Vermonters won't get any help from the federal government. 

Money for immediate needs will flow in the Green Mountain State in counties that have been declared a disaster area. 

Vermonter who need help now if not sooner will get it. 

There's a chance the money shortage could slow eventual rebuilding, however. 

As Marketplace reports:

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund is running low, and is likely to be in the red sometime next moth. That's before the end of the current fiscal year, and right in the middle of hurricane and wildfire season."

Congress can approve supplemental funding, and has in the past when this kind of thing happened. But of course, Congress is so dysfunctional these days I'd be surprised if half the members can tie their own shoelaces. 

If FEMA quote, unquote "runs out of money," it's not like they will immediately stop helping. At last report, the federal government has approved nearly $5 million in disaster payouts to Vermont, and that number will surely grow.

FEMA will do the same for the flood victims in Kentucky, and whichever disaster comes down the pike in the coming months 

Marketplace again:

"Craig Fugate was FEMA Administrator during the Obama administration, and he said the agency will make sure it has cash for a disaster like that. 

'But it means a lot of other programs, like the rebuilding, the mitigation programs, will either cease or slow down until they get more funding,' he said. 

It's rare for that to happen, but Ari Renoni, a deputy director of disaster recovery at Hagerty Consulting, said when it does, there are consequences. "This can really have this downstream effect where, you know, the states, the local communities affected by these events, it just further delays their ability to recover,' he said." 

The following is pretty much speculation on my part, but it's something to consider. After the extreme floods from Tropical Storm Irene in 2011, Vermont officials wanted to "build back better" to borrow a phrase from the current Biden administration.

With climate change becoming a bigger and bigger factor, Vermont officials wanted to rebuild culverts and bridges to accommodate larger future floods. 

However - and I'm over-simplifing a bit here - FEMA rules pretty much said you could only build back to the level you had before the disaster. Vermont officials fought this, and we got some funding for better culvert, road and bridge designs that would lessen the effects of future floods. 

When July's floods hit, Vermont's bridges and culverts did better than they did during Irene, although we know there was still a lot of damage. 

Federal spending, as we know, is controlled by Congress. We still have incredible pushback from Senate and House Republicans on even the idea of climate change. With that crowd around, it's going to be a lot harder for FEMA to receive funding if even someone whispers the phrase "climate change" in appropriations requests. v

I obviously don't know what the sausage making in Congress will end up doing

There is a bill in Congress that would supply $11.5 billion in supplemental funding for FEMA's disaster relief fund.  That doesn't necessarily mean that will happen quickly. 

According to Roll Call in an article earlier this month:

"However, political dynamics for the caps in the debt limit law could imperil the chances of swift passage of an emergency supplemental. Specifically, lawmakers in both parties are expected to eye any moving spending bill as an opportunity to fund their own priorities, from Ukraine military assistance to aid for migrants crossing the southern border."

Senators from hurricane-prone states, including, notably, Republicans, are trying to get a clean FEMA bill passed without extraneous add ons.  We'll see how that goes. 

The United States is just now getting into the time of year when particularly expensive disasters strike.  The heart of hurricane season starts any day now and lasts into early October. From now into the fall is when wildfires out west tend to be at their worst.

Plus, August, like July, is traditionally a month that features flash floods like we saw this summer in Vermont, Kentucky, New York and elsewhere. 

Let's hope Congress makes the right decision about funding upcoming weather disasters, whether or not climate change contributes to them.