Related to the last posting, here’s a new tack: including requirements for far-reaching implications of the reconstruction efforts post-Sandy into the Congressional appropriations for recovery. In my view this action seems to be an immediate way to get around the limitations of the enabling legislation, regulations and program requirements of FEMA and other disaster agencies.
Sandy relief bill says rebuilding effort should take into consideration climate-related risks; published 19 December 2012 in Homeland Security Wire.
The $60 billion Sandy relief bill being debated this week in the Senate does not specifically mention the words climate change or global warming, but it implicitly raises topics and themes which are part of the climate change discussion; the bill says that federal, state, and local agencies engaged in the post-Sandy rebuilding effort should take into consideration “future extreme weather events, sea level rise and coastal flooding”
The Senate begins debate this week of the administration request for a $60 billion package in disaster relief funds for states which suffered the wrath of Hurricane Sandy.
Scientists point to Sandy and the damage it left in its wake as disasters we are likely to experience more of as a consequence of climate change, and the Hill notes that the bill, while not specifically mentioning the words climate change or global warming, implicitly raises topics and themes which are part of the climate change discussion.
The bill, for example, urges consideration of the effects of rising sea levels in the rebuilding effort.
The bill says: “In carrying out activities funded by this title that involve repairing, rebuilding, or restoring infrastructure and restoring land, project sponsors shall consider, where appropriate, the increased risks and vulnerabilities associated with future extreme weather events, sea level rise and coastal flooding.”
The bill also says that that federal agencies, in partnership with state and local governments, should seek to ensure that recovery and rebuilding plans “reduce vulnerabilities from and build long-term resiliency to future extreme weather events, sea level rise and coastal flooding.”
Be sure to read the comments, which raise all kinds of new considerations!
Recovery Diva 
At the moment I am intrigued with this indirect way of taking steps toward resilience.
Apparently, PKEMRA also was embedded in an appropriations bill. Rather an oblique process for getting things done.
Interesting to note that the IPCC says that the maximum acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is 0.013 mm/yr**2 since 1900. That means that the rate of sea level rise is – at most – about 1.5 mm/yr faster than it was in 1900. Better have a damned good yardstick to measure that finely! As discussed today at http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/20/20th-century-mean-global-sea-level-rise/, sea level rise is rather uncertain.
On the flip side, Shelby County (TN) County Council has voted to delay implementation of building codes to address the earthquake risks faced by communities along the New Madrid fault. For those of us who are geographically challenged, Memphis is in Shelby County. It is somewhat ironic that this story and your piece come out at the same time. If a major earthquake (like the ones of 1811-12) occurs along the fault, Sandy’s impacts would be reduced to Lilliputian proportions. The damage (physical, social, economic) in Memphis would be worse than the Katrina-caused damage in NOLA. Rail traffic across the Mississippi River would be severely curtailed (roughly half goes through Memphis). There likely would be major damage to levees up and down the Mississippi. Economic disruption would be severe; a recession (or worse) is a certainty.
The 1811-12 quakes hit in the dead of a very cold winter (eruption of several volcanoes and low solar activity). If that happened today, people in the Northeast would have limited electricity and some would be without heat (about 35% of the fossil fuel used in the Northeast US moves through the area at risk). Some would freeze to death. There would be impacts on our food supplies as well; the very young, the very old, the poor and the sick would be at risk of malnutrition and starvation.
I hope you’ll pardon me if I don’t get too excited about spending money on a threat whose magnitude we don’t even know (and we’re not even sure is a threat), when we’re not willing to spend money on a very real and present danger whose consequences we do know, and should recognize will be even worse.