The old saying goes that everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it. That's no longer true. Our daily choices, especially in energy use, shape how extreme the weather becomes.
From floods and wildfires to tornadoes and heat waves, natural disasters dominate the news. Billion-dollar events have jumped 83% worldwide since the 1990s. Last year alone, 23 such disasters struck the U.S., the third-highest count since 1980, causing 276 deaths and $115 billion in damages. Scientists warn no region is immune.
Public attitudes are shifting. Four years ago, fewer believed personal action could affect climate change. Now, nearly 60% feel a personal obligation to act. This has sparked interest in "climate democracy," where communities engage citizens in preparing for and recovering from weather-related disasters. Everyone with an environmental footprint—which is everyone—gets a vote.
One leader is the Climate Democracy Initiative, a Colorado nonprofit where I serve as unpaid senior fellow. It frames climate change as both an environmental and governance problem, especially for small and rural communities with limited resources. These areas face extreme weather while dealing with uncertain federal help and fragmented programs.
"Our goal is flipping that script to put local voices first," says executive director Natalie Montecino. "People are contending with rapid environmental, economic, and political changes without the resources, representation, or institutional trust needed to respond. We work with communities to build the civic leadership and decision-making power to shape that response themselves, rather than wait on systems that too often leave them behind."
This approach turns climate action into local democracy. It's necessary because federal help, while essential, isn't always reliable. Climate change is a forever crisis, but political priorities shift. The current administration denies climate change, and Congress has done little since the U.S. signed the 1992 climate agreement.
People are both the victims and the solution. Local tools include building codes, land-use planning, zoning, managed retreats, clean energy, and nature-based hazard mitigation. But this doesn't let Washington off the hook. The federal government has subsidized fossil fuels for over a century, encouraging pollution. Direct subsidies total about $35 billion yearly, but the true cost—including social and environmental damages—is $725 billion annually. That's corporate welfare for a wealthy industry.
Washington must also address legacy risks. The 20th-century approach was to control nature with engineering. Now, tens of millions live in floodplains and storm surge zones, assuming structures protect them. The U.S. has nearly 17,000 high-hazard dams and at least 24,000 miles of levees, most built for 50-year lifespans but averaging over 60 years old, and not designed for today's intense weather. Repairing deficient dams would cost $165 billion, levees $70 billion, and coastal armoring $416 billion by 2040. Nonstructural, nature-based mitigation is safer and cheaper.
Federal policy should emphasize disaster avoidance. In 2024-2025, more Americans moved out of disaster zones than into them. FEMA should prioritize managed retreats that preserve communities and tax bases. Federal buyouts return up to $6 per $1 spent, compared to $2 for levees, but FEMA takes at least five years to finalize buyouts—too slow for many homeowners.
Access to aid is another issue. Over 30 federal agencies offer disaster programs, but there's no single entry point. FEMA should create one portal and approve local plans before disasters to speed post-disaster help. However, local people must take control and own their future by reducing fossil pollution, restoring ecosystems, moving out of hazard zones, and planning ahead. As energy efficiency and Democratic primary battles show, climate action is intertwined with political will. The path forward lies in community-led resilience, not waiting for Washington.
