As we have been saying a lot lately, it has become increasingly clear that the escalating climate crisis poses a dire threat not just to our environment but to our wallets as well. Earlier this summer, smoke from Canadian wildfires shut down towns and cities in the Northeast, and Hurricane Dora – that didn’t even make landfall in Hawaii – has sent winds that whipped up wildfires to inundate western Maui and parts of Oahu and the Big Island. Speaking of hurricanes, the East and Gulf coasts are staring down the barrel of another hurricane season. In the midst of it all, recent projections indicate the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) disaster relief fund will run out of funds, potentially leaving the agency ill-equipped to respond effectively to the mounting crises fueled by climate change.

The disaster fund is projected to run out of money by mid-to-late August and will be forced to shuffle funds around or go in the red for a major disaster. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) has introduced legislation for $11.5 billion in supplemental funding for the fund. This move is echoed in the Senate, where Republican Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rick Scott (R-FL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have also introduced a similar bill. And just this week, the Biden Administration included $12 billion in DRF funding as part of its $40 billion emergency spending request. Of course, lawmakers aren’t around to vote to refill the DRF’s coffers.

While FEMA’s immediate concern is its fiscal solvency, we must acknowledge the broader context: climate change’s inexorable march means the problem is set to worsen. Proposed bills seeking to bolster the agency’s disaster relief fund are an unavoidable step, but it’s a bit like playing whack-a-mole. In her recent testimony before Congress, FEMA’s administrator Deanne Criswell emphasized the necessity of proactive measures and predictive modeling to brace for the intensifying storms on the horizon. It’s clear that Congress should earmark a significant amount of this spending for mitigation efforts.

Our recent report, “Paying the Price,” highlights the increasing costs that federal taxpayers bear due to climate change. Presidential major disaster declarations, which trigger funding for emergency and recovery efforts led by FEMA, tripled from 200 in the 1960s to 600 in the first decade of this century. Average annual climate-related disaster costs already exceed most federal agency budgets. And the actual costs are likely higher, as the federal government, particularly the Department of Defense, does not account for all its climate-related costs.

Over the last twenty years, there has been a notable increase in FEMA disaster relief fund expenditures, especially from 2005 onward. Beginning in 2005, an upward trend emerged, with annual spending reaching an average of $16.5 billion. This surge in expenditure ascribes to the heightened frequency and intensity of natural disasters, coupled with an increasing demand for disaster response and recovery initiatives.

Clearly, we must shift our approach from more and more reactive disaster relief to robust mitigation strategies that could help alleviate the devastating impact of these calamities. To reduce the exorbitant toll climate change is taking on taxpayers, we must commit significant resources to preemptive measures that curb the destruction caused by these disasters.

In our report “Clearing the Smoke,” we made similar recommendations that describe how decades of so-called fire borrowing have diverted resources from programs that prevent or reduce wildfire impacts to pay for more wildfire suppression. The Forest Service has projected this imbalance to worsen in the coming years.

The impacts of climate change are no longer a distant concern but a pressing fiscal reality. The time has come for a seismic shift towards proactive mitigation strategies that will safeguard lives and livelihoods and protect taxpayers from an ever-growing burden.

As we grapple with the financial precipice facing FEMA and its disaster relief fund, Congress should seize this moment to enact meaningful change. Climate change is not just an ecological crisis; it’s a fiscal one too. The stakes couldn’t be higher, and our collective future depends on our choices today. Let us commit to a future in which we prioritize mitigation over recovery, resilience over ruin, and fiscal responsibility over avoidable taxpayer liabilities. The time to act is now.