- Mitigation: the action of lessening in severity or intensity = Sustainability = Success

There are many hazards, some are man-made and some are natural. I will touch on the subject of a natural and recurring hazard, Hurricanes. Hurricanes are recurring events that cause massive destruction. The negative impact on energy, environment, economy, physical and mental health and many other areas after such events are tremendous and deeply far reaching and lasting.

Why the contribution is important

- Energy is expended to manufacture and transport goods, to provide medical care, food supplies, emergency power, personnel and many other things. If you take the time to consider all the immediate efforts and the prolonged efforts, which may be required for many months, to recover from such a disaster you will begin to understand the true depth of the negative impact hurricanes can have on our energy production and consumption, this includes energy produced at home and imported.

- Environmentally, hurricanes cause significant damage across large areas (even far inland) which result in enormous clean up efforts and tons of material being deposited in our landfills, not to mention the resulting contamination of our waterways, drinking water, soil and other important environmental concerns. Additionally our natural resource and imported resource use is increased significantly. Just consider all the resources needed and the length of time required to recover from such events and you will realize that the extent of the negative environmental impact, including its contribution to “climate change” is very significant.

- Economy is impacted on an enormous scale. According to a report by the NOAA:
(Rita - approximately $16.0 (17.1) billion in damage/costs)
(Katrina - approximately $125 (133.8) billion in damage/costs)

It has been estimated that the United States averages approximately $18 billion dollars a year in economic loss due specifically to hurricanes. (This is probably a conservative estimate)

- Health issues that are both physical and mental can arise in the aftermath of such events. The failure of structures and contamination of the environment can result in short term or prolonged medical problems and even death. The mental impact of being dispersed from your home, your job, your community and even your state combined with economic loss, family loss and many other losses and/or factors can cause significant strain on a victim’s mental state and cause enormous stress.

Mitigation of loss, on a small scale and upwards to a global scale, has a direct affect on reducing negative energy impact, negative environmental impact, economic loss, negative mental and physical health issues, climate change and many other issues.

Mitigation of loss also reduces the physical, natural and man-made resources, energy expenditures, economic expenditures, medical resources and the many other underlying requirements needed to recover from a hazard or threat. In turn we are more prepared for, more resilient and able to adjust to and more easily and rapidly able to recover from daily occurring nominal events and even events that are considered disastrous or hazardous and thereby we become more resilient and sustainable.

Mitigation should be of importance to our Nation, since it directly relates to all our other efforts in economy, environment, energy, health, infrastructure, climate change and elsewhere.

More should be done to seek out, assist in developing and implementing new innovative technologies to mitigate our hazards.

If we do not advance Mitigation technology in unison with other goals, we risk prolonging all of our other goals, we risk reducing their effectiveness and we risk being able to successfully reach the ultimate goal of providing a Nation that ensures a wondrous future for the generations that follow in our footsteps.

Please log in to add your rating.

Votes so far:

4.0
4.0 (17 votes - averaged)
torema
Posted by torema September 01, 2009 at 06:23PM
I couldn't agree more. In case I don't mention it in a different discussion, matching grants in this economic environment are, in short, not grants. Almost all current mitigation grants/funding require matches, sometimes 100%.
pmocek
Posted by pmocek September 01, 2009 at 07:14PM
This is somewhat interesting, but what is the idea -- the suggestion -- posed here?
Ronnie
Posted by Ronnie September 01, 2009 at 07:50PM
The idea appears to be that more focus should be put on mitigating our hazards to lessen the severity of those hazards and thereby making our nation more resilient, while simultaneously supporting our other efforts concerning energy, environment, economy and others. I think it is an excellent idea.
SteveC
Posted by SteveC September 01, 2009 at 09:26PM
Perhaps apply it to the TSA as well.
JG
Posted by JG September 02, 2009 at 05:54PM
I looks as if disasters have a far reaching and long lasting negative effect on our Nation and also impact our ability to progress forward in other areas. I like this posting.
JosephMichael
Posted by JosephMichael September 02, 2009 at 07:07PM
Excellent description of the extensive effects to which disasters can impact other areas of importance far beyond their initial point of impact. Also an excellent demonstration of how mitigation can play a major role in reducing these impacts on the front line. I like this post.
cdreibel
Posted by cdreibel September 03, 2009 at 10:19AM
Good points. Mitigation is important for resilience. This raises the questions of how do we do it? Who pays? What is the role of government here? Is there a role for public/private/community partnerships?
goran
Posted by goran September 03, 2009 at 03:16PM
The Federal Government should not go further than recommending building standards and ordinances to states and local governments. This is guessing where the next disaster will happen beyond common sense practices in where to build and conduct commerce. It is the role of local government to decide whatr happpens locally and the Federal government should remain an advisor not a fund provider or the responsible party for mitigation of disasters.
DHahn
Posted by DHahn September 04, 2009 at 10:59AM
Mitigation is the least sexy of the 4 phases of emergency management but probably the one that can most simplify the other phases. Unfortunately it does not appear that mitigation in all its forms is taken seriously. If it was we would NOT build on barrier islands, or on land that is below sea level. Mitigation takes political will as much as it takes money.
AkinsF
Posted by AkinsF September 04, 2009 at 09:09PM
I have read posts that suggest that mitigation is a local issue and not a federal issue. 1.) That is assuming that the mitigation efforts proposed for a particular disaster area can not be implemented in other areas to benefit them in an indirect manner by protecting them from even nominal events. 2.) It is assuming that a disaster occurs in one location and has no impact on other locations. 3.) That is assuming that the local community and/or state has the funds, resources and/or desire to pursue mitigation efforts. 4.) That is assuming that a disaster does not have an enormous negative National impact. Those are costly and perhaps dangerous assumptions. The federal government is in the unique position to have both funds and resources to support mitigation efforts, it is only lacking the desire. Disasters, when they occur, affect all of us and it's the unique responsibility of the federal government to protect all the people of this nation, its economy, its environment, its resources, its energy consumption and other aspects as a whole. Perhaps the reason we have not been able to be more aggressive in protecting our Nation is because it is assumed that each state or community should fend for itself. If that is the case perhaps we should change our name from the United States to the Sometimes United States. Mitigation of our hazards is a matter of National Importance since hazards whether man made or natural can negatively impact us all.
Shadoeknight2001
Posted by Shadoeknight2001 September 07, 2009 at 10:17PM
I disagree that the government should not make mandates. My tax dollars are at work as well as everyone else's here. I want some return on my money. I had to replace my roof. I have insurance to protect my property and my family. I pay every month for this protection. I did the usual and proper thing of turning into my insurance company. The insurance company who had already been paid in advance for their services (and were never needed I might add) was nice enough to charge me more. I essence isn't that fraud. I paid for a service that was to protect me and there to use if or when I needed it. When I used it I got charged more. If the government makes a standard and uses this roofing system then the economy may be stimulated when the insurance company doesn't loose money for coastal properties since roofs may not suffer catastrophic damage. Insurance companies keep more of their money, which allows me to eventually begin paying lower rates. Seems to be a win-win situation.
gpate
Posted by gpate September 08, 2009 at 11:01AM
It has been stated that in the near future building will be required to post some sort of rating as to how safe they are, this is only a small part of mitigation efforts. Whether the government involves itself or not, the entire community needs to be apart of this phase of emergency management. I feel that this is probably the most important phase. It will lessen the impact of most disasters.
vbotkin
Posted by vbotkin September 08, 2009 at 11:30PM
I'm in agreement with this. I would like to add that the issue of climate change will become increasingly important in the coming decades, and has the potential for many disastrous effects on America's security. Mitigating it requires a coordinated effort: legislation from Congress; regulation from the EPA; incentives for businesses to provide carbon-free power and for architects to decide green, efficient buildings. I hope that Homeland Security can see that this is an important issue, and consider initiatives to mitigate climate change as part of its mandate to deal with natural disasters and protect our nation's resources.
Please log in to add comments