Texas floods reveal climate blindness in the US – Sustainable Views

Report on the Widening Gap Between Climate Risk and Emergency Management Systems

Executive Summary: A Failure to Meet Sustainable Development Goals

Recent extreme weather events, exemplified by the Texas flash floods, highlight a critical divergence between escalating climate risks and the diminishing capacity of systems designed to manage them. This trend directly undermines progress towards several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning climate action, sustainable communities, and resilient infrastructure. Reductions in federal funding for weather forecasting and emergency response are exacerbating vulnerabilities for both communities and businesses, signaling a failure to integrate sustainability and long-term resilience into national policy.

SDG 13: Climate Action – A Regression in Policy and Preparedness

Urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts is being compromised by policy decisions that run counter to scientific evidence.

Escalating Climate Threats

• Scientific data confirms that supposed “once-in-a-lifetime” weather events are becoming more frequent. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recorded 27 extreme weather disasters in the US causing over $1 billion in damages in 2024 alone, compared to 33 such events in the entire 1980s.
• The physical science basis is clear: warmer air holds more moisture, leading to heavier rainfall and more intense storms, as stated by NOAA.

Erosion of Federal Support Systems

Despite increasing risks, federal investment in climate monitoring and emergency management is being withdrawn.

1. The administration’s budget includes $200 million in cuts to NOAA, targeting laboratories that monitor severe storms and atmospheric conditions.
2. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is slated to lose approximately 1,000 employees, weakening the national capacity for disaster response.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – Increasing Vulnerability

The goal of making human settlements safe, resilient, and sustainable is threatened by inadequate planning and under-investment in adaptation measures.

Inadequate Risk Framing and Local Preparedness

• Outdated terminology, such as FEMA’s “100-year floodplain” designation, misrepresents current risk levels and contributes to under-investment in flood protection.
• State-level climate preparedness is inconsistent. Research from the Georgetown Climate Center shows that 31 US states, including the flood-hit state of Texas, lack a state-led adaptation plan.
• Political short-termism often prevents investment in precautionary measures like early warning systems, as they do not offer immediate, visible returns. Kerr County, Texas, for example, did not install a siren system for which it had previously sought a federal grant.

SDG 8 & 9: Economic Growth and Resilient Infrastructure – A Compounding Business Risk

The failure to build resilient infrastructure (SDG 9) is creating significant economic disruption, hindering sustainable economic growth (SDG 8).

Direct Business and Economic Impacts

• Over 60% of executives report that extreme weather has already disrupted their business operations, including direct damage to physical infrastructure.
• The Texas floods alone are estimated to have caused approximately $22 billion in economic damages.
• Former senior climate risk adviser Laurie Schoeman warns of significant future supply chain interruptions resulting from the combination of extreme weather and reduced federal support.

The Economic Case for Adaptation

Investing in climate adaptation is economically prudent. A study by the World Resources Institute found that every $1 invested in climate adaptation can yield more than $10.50 in benefits, highlighting a missed opportunity for sustainable economic planning.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – A Call for Collaborative Resilience

Addressing the crisis requires a renewed commitment to collaboration between scientific bodies, government agencies, and the private sector.

Recommendations for a Path Forward

1. Establish a National Disaster Safety Board: As proposed by former FEMA administrator Craig Fugate, such a body would investigate disasters to recommend systemic improvements in forecasting, communication, and response coordination.
2. Adopt Proactive Land Use Planning: Experts like Jim Blackburn argue for dedicating at-risk land areas to water management, acknowledging that rainfall runoff will require more space over time.
3. Shift from Reaction to Resilience: The focus must move from “bouncing back” after a disaster to “bouncing forward” by learning, adapting, and making changes demanded by scientific data. This requires frank conversations about climate risk to prevent future tragedies.

Ultimately, there is a massive disconnect between scientific modeling and on-the-ground implementation. Without heeding scientific warnings and fostering robust partnerships for resilience, communities and economies remain dangerously exposed.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  The article is centered on the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like floods and wildfires, directly linking them to climate change. It discusses the need to strengthen resilience, improve forecasting, and invest in adaptation, which are core components of SDG 13.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article details the devastating impact of flash floods on communities, such as in central Texas. It covers economic damages, loss of life, and the vulnerability of infrastructure. It also highlights the failure of urban and state-level planning to account for climate risks, which is a key concern of SDG 11.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

  The text points to the disruption of business operations and “direct damage to physical infrastructure” caused by extreme weather. It implicitly calls for more resilient infrastructure by discussing the folly of building in floodplains and the need for better early warning systems, aligning with the goals of SDG 9.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article emphasizes the economic consequences of climate-related disasters, noting that “more than 60 per cent of worldwide catastrophe losses occur in north America.” It also reports that 61% of US executives have experienced business disruption and expect rising costs, linking environmental degradation directly to economic stability and growth, a central theme of SDG 8.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

     The article directly addresses this target by highlighting a “growing gap between climate risk and the systems that manage it.” It discusses the failure to invest in adaptation, with adaptation finance representing “less than 10 per cent of global climate investments,” and the need to build resilience by “refusing to let hope cloud evidence.”

   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.

     This target is relevant as the article criticizes outdated risk communication, such as FEMA’s “100-year floodplains” designation. It also points to a failure in institutional capacity through budget cuts to NOAA and FEMA and the fact that a Texas county “did not ultimately install” a proposed siren system, a key tool for early warning.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses…caused by disasters.

     The article provides concrete examples of the failure to meet this target, citing the “tragic loss of life” and “$22bn in economic damages” from the Texas floods alone. The rising number of billion-dollar disasters in the US further underscores the relevance of this target.

   • Target 11.b: …increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards…adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters…

     The article highlights a major gap in this area, stating that “31 US states, including Texas, have no state-led adaptation plan in place.” The call by an expert to change the attitude that flood plain regulations are “a hassle rather than a requirement for public safety” speaks directly to the need for integrated policies for disaster resilience.

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure…to support economic development and human well-being.

     The article connects to this target by reporting that “61 per cent [of US-based executives] reported that extreme weather had already disrupted their business — including direct damage to physical infrastructure.” The discussion about building in floodways and the need for infrastructure like early warning siren systems points to the necessity of developing resilient infrastructure.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 11 (Target 11.5) and SDG 13 (Target 13.1)

   • Economic Losses from Disasters

     The article provides specific figures that can be used as indicators of economic loss, such as the “$22bn in economic damages” from the Texas floods and the fact that there were “27 extreme weather disasters in the US causing more than $1bn in damages” in 2024 alone.

   • Human Impact of Disasters

     The article mentions the “tragic loss of life” in the Texas floods. This aligns with indicators measuring the number of deaths and people affected by disasters.

2. For SDG 11 (Target 11.b) and SDG 13 (Target 13.2)

   • National and Local Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies

     The article provides a clear, negative indicator by stating that “31 US states, including Texas, have no state-led adaptation plan in place.” The number of states with or without such plans can be used to measure progress.

3. For SDG 8 and SDG 9

   • Business Disruption from Disasters

     The article cites survey data that can serve as an indicator: “61 per cent [of US-based executives] reported that extreme weather had already disrupted their business — including direct damage to physical infrastructure.” Tracking this percentage over time would measure the impact on industry and the economy.

4. For SDG 13 (Target 13.3)

   • Investment in Early Warning Systems

     The article implies an indicator through the example of Kerr County, which “had applied for a nearly $1mn Fema grant in 2016 for a siren system, but did not ultimately install one.” The number of communities with functional, multi-hazard early warning systems and the funding allocated to them can be a direct measure of progress.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: sustainableviews.com