Greed vs Risk vs Climate Change

Today, especially in North America, climate change and the risks associated with that change, is increasingly important, yet increasingly, ignored.

I was a Fire Chief/Director of Emergency Services for three jurisdictions over 13 years, and one of my primary responsibilities and roles was to identify, assess, and plan for every possible ‘risk’ associated with the jurisdiction.

Identifying hazards, was generally not an issue. Most risks were known, as were the actions necessary to mitigate those risks.

The problems revolved around gaining consensus on action to take the required actions necessary to mitigate each identified risk.

In one of the jurisdictions I was responsible for, after identifying 41 known risks and prioritizing the most probable, based on frequency, likelihood, and severity, it was deemed that of the 41, two were substantive in the fact that frequency, likelihood, and severity of occurrence would be so significant, both in terms of life safety and damage, including loss of income (at all levels) that mitigation efforts had to be made and could not be ignored.

After consulting with a range of peers, engineers, climatologists, and experts from several scientific avenues of study, the consensus was that some very clear mitigation strategies would pay dividends, should one of the natural events occur.

Plans were prepared and every facet of mitigation, compensation, direct and indirect costs analyzed, data studied and numbers crunched to provide what could only be called a forensic analysis of each situation and risk.

A series of cost/effective measures were drawn up, including an implementation and costing for each measure. These plans, thorough were then provided to the administration for due consideration, filed, and recorded, along with recommendations and the final study submission.

As preamble to what followed, understand that this jurisdiction was one of, if not, the most affluent jurisdictions in the country.

All of the mitigation costs, as submitted were reasonable, and doable, based on a five-year implementation plan.

The plan included the probable and statistically likely occurrence by mathematical probability, of occurrence, based on climate change implications.

Response

I learned almost immediately that being the bearer of bad news, irrespective of a cogent, thoughtful, cost-effective strategy of implementation and action, that took months to conclude, was useless when greed and politics combine.

I was, not so politely, told to essentially retract my recommendation as the Emergency Planner and bring back something more palatable and more innocuous.

I refused, as I felt duty-bound to inform those communities at greatest risk, that they at least be allowed to choose whether the costs and subsequent increase in taxes, were worth the investment in lowering risk and improving life safety.

I was allowed to present my findings at a public hearing where 400 residents attended.

What followed, was for me, a shock.

I had assumed that information, facts, and statistical analysis would provide the public with an understanding that would lead them to read a logical conclusion.

Without going into too many specifics, suffice it to say that the required actions meant imposing some changes to the physical landscape and construction standards for the jurisdiction.

The residents, now totally aware of the risk, decided to do nothing. As affluent as they were, they did not want to spend one thin dime on action to mitigate their risks.

I became immediately aware that my action had placed my tenure in my position at risk, and subsequently left the organization months later.

What this proved to me was the following;

1. Facts of an impending risk occurring mean nothing to those unmoved by the ‘probable’.
2. Greed, by both jurisdictions in terms of inviting investment, development, and increasing the tax base is paramount.
3. You can define, illustrate, and predict the frequency, likelihood, and severity of an occurrence, but that in no way will override the economics of home ownership, aesthetic choices, and irrational thought.
4. People will accept irrational risk through rationalization, leading to both inaction and significant opposition.

I learned a number of lessons from this specific experience and two of my compatriots involved in managing both the risks and the events that follow such inaction, subsequently left the industry as well.

My hope is that the one of the children of some of those 400 assembled that day may well have discovered how information and facts, internalized as knowledge may enable them to cme to better conclusions than their parents.

Incidentally, and not unimportantly, after I left the province, it suffered three devastating emergency events that have shaped the lives of literally tens of thousands, all for the worse.

For some, lessons must be learned the hard way.

I retired as a Director of Emergency Services and Emergency Planner, but what proved to be invaluable was that I took these experiences into teaching ethics and conflict resolution at college, which I continued for 20 years.

Insights

The natural world is changing. It is an immutable fact. Weather systems are less predictable and the data that most jurisdictions utilize is out of date, biased or essentially useless, as change is occurring so quickly that old data, literaly now only ten years past, is of little value. The outcome is that predictions are being made based on flawed assumptions and incomplete, inadequate or now, irrelevant data.

But the bigger problem is one of willful ignorance and neglect,

The rationale for most of that failure is simply, greed and profit. The industry doesn’t want to spend more, and jurisdictions simply want to attract more revenue.

Growth is good, and so is greed, apparently, because it is often rewarded.

Increased demands for improved building construction, flood mapping, and identification of fire risk to wildland fire that requires additional costs to move or ban the building of homes and businesses on flood plains and where fire risks are deemed to be excessive, are shelved, ignored, denied or decisions made by those with a vested interest in the status quo.

Understand the risks of action vs inaction, as either way, you will be held accountable.

One of the reasons why I believe moving politicians to act is so difficult, is due to the short tenure of their service. No one wants to be the “bad guy” or the one who “cost us that development”.

Instead, each council, mayor, CAO, and others, base their decisions on a risk/reward analysis that favors those who seek profit over responsibility.

You simply don’t want to be the one without a seat when the music stops.

And the music, eventually, always, stops.

Silence, before the storm.

That is what the future and climate change put in peril.

Greed versus ethics. Truth vs Lies. Honor vs a kleptocracy.

It’s all of our choices to make.

But to do so requires knowledge and a willingness to be inquisitive.

To actively seek solutions, not excuses or panaceas.

Ethics matter. Truth matters, Leadership matters,. Taking accountability and responsibility matters.